Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BURY AND DISTRICT JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Bury and District Joint Hospital District," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 6.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHESTER AND DERBY) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the counties of Chester and Derby," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 7.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL, ORDER (NORTH EAST LINDSEY JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the North East Lindsey Joint Hospital District," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 8.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE JOINT SMALLPDX HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the South Staffordshire Joint Small-pox Hospital District," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

CAMPBELTOWN HARBOUR, WATER, AND GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to Campbeltown Harbour, Water, and Gas,"

presented by Sir Godfrey Collins; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act of 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL DEFENCE (FRANCOBRITISH CORRESPONDENCE).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish in the form of a White Paper the correspondence exchanged between His Majesty's Government and the French Government with reference to the support asked for from the French Government in case our fleet were attacked in the Mediterranean, and, in particular, the notes or memoranda of 5th, 14th, 16th, 18th and 26th October, 1935?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir. I regret that it would not be in the public interest to publish the correspondence on this subject.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: Can my right hon. Friend give me any idea when the information will be available to the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: Not at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the League of Nations proposes to offer any national help to Abyssinia through the medium of the convention for financial assistance to states the subject of aggression, or in any other manner; and whether any application to this effect has been received from Abyssinia?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Ethiopian Government applied, on 1st November, to the League of Nations for aid in accordance with the principles laid down in the Draft Convention for Financial Assistance. The Convention, as the hon. Member will be aware, has not entered into force, and it will be for the Council of the League to deal with the matter.

Mr. MANDER: Can the Prime Minister say at which meeting of the Council it is likely to be considered? Will it be this week?

The PRIME MINISTER: No; I am afraid I could not answer that question without notice.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to analogous precedents, what is the objection he entertains to an unilateral ban by Great Britain in the export of munitions of war, including oil, to the combatants in the Italo-Abyssinian war?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Italo-Abyssinian question is in the hands of the League of Nations, the decisions of whose members are taken collectively. Any action upon the lines proposed in the hon. Member's question would be directly contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government as frequently outlined by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the reference to precedents in my question; and does he recollect that a unilateral ban has been imposed in the case of armaments against Japan and China, against Italy and Abyssinia, and against Bolivia and Paraguay? Is it not possible to arrive at some consistency, so that foreign nations would know where we stand?

The PRIME MINISTER: It might be possible, but I do not think it is desirable. I think that to rely only on precedent might be a mistake in this case. The important thing is to keep the collective action of the League.

Mr. DALTON: Did not the present Home Secretary, when he held the office of Foreign Secretary, impose a unilateral bin on the export of armaments to both China and Japan?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I have not that in my mind, but it would not affect my judgment in the present case.

Mr. DALTON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a further statement regarding the proposals submitted, on behalf of His Majesty's Government and the French Government, to the Italian Government for a settlement of the war in Abyssinia?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; at present there is nothing to add to the statements made by my right hon. Friend

the Minister for League of Nations Affairs and myself in the Debate yesterday.

Mr. DALTON: In view of the very great concern that is felt in many parts of this country and abroad, will not the Prime Minister now publish the true version of these proposals, inaccurate versions of which, as he is well aware, have appeared in the Press?

The PRIME MINISTER: No one could be more anxious than I for publication, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that it does not rest with ourselves alone. The very first moment that it is possible to publish them, we shall certainly do so.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the proposals are going to be considered by the Committee of Five of the League to-morrow at Geneva?

The PRIME MINISTER: Undoubtedly they will be considered, but I am afraid I cannot tell, until my right hon. Friend gets out to Geneva, whether the Committee of Five or the Committee of Eighteen will take the matter in hand.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will they be communicated to the Abyssinian and Italian Governments before Geneva has considered them?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should be in a better position to answer that question in a day or two; I am not quite certain.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any British nationals were injured when Dessie was bombed by Italian aeroplanes on 6th December; whether any protest has been made through Geneva at the bombing of the American hospital; and whether he can state the number of persons, if any, injured thereby?

The PRIME MINISTER: So far as I am aware, no British national was injured in the recent air raids on Dessie. In protesting to the League of Nations against the aerial bombardment of this town, the Emperor of Abyssinia referred to the bombing of the American hospital; and His Majesty's telegram to the League has been followed by a further communication embodying a formal declaration by six doctors of the hospital alleging that more than 40 bombs fell within its


precincts. I have no detailed information on the casualties resulting from these raids, but I understand that there were many killed and wounded.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will compensation be paid?

The PRIME MINISTER: That question, I am afraid, I am not in a position yet to answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

Mr. MOREING: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any report from His Majesty's Ambassador in China on discrimination against British shipping in favour of Chinese at the port of Lao Yao, the terminus of the Lung-Hai railway; and whether, in view of the importance of this port as the chief outlet of the trade of Northern Central China and for the furtherance of friendly relations between the two countries, he will make urgent representations to the Chinese Government for the removal of all restrictions which may unfairly hamper British shipping in competing on equal terms with Chinese ships at Lao Yao?

The PRIME MINISTER: British vessels are entitled to trade with the port of Lao Yao, the importance of which is fully recognised, under Inland Water Navigation Regulations, and I understand that certain difficulties have arisen with regard to the application of these regulations. My right hon. Friend is expecting to be furnished shortly with a report on the subject, which will receive careful attention.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Government of Japan regarding the ultimatum delivered to the Chinese administration in Pekin demanding the setting up of a Government in North China independent of the central Government at Nanking?

The PRIME MINISTER: The autonomy movement in North China recently formed the subject of conversations between His Majesty's Government and the Japanese Government, details

of which were given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 5th December in the course of the Debate on the Address.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: May I ask why the right hon. Gentleman refers to this as an autonomy movement in Northern China?

The PRIME MINISTER: Because I believe it is the correct definition.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Does the Prime Minister seriously suggest that this movement is not one of Japanese domination rather than autonomy?

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH FOREIGN LEGION (MR. A. R. CONWAY).

Sir JOHN GANZONI: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Arthur Robart Conway, of Ipswich, was enlisted at Paris on 6th September at the age of 19 into the Foreign Legion and is now serving in Algiers; that his father has tried to obtain his son's discharge on account of his having been enlisted under the age of 20 without his parent's consent, contrary to the French regulations, and also on account of curvature of the spine making hard work painful and dangerous; and will he consider what action he can take to obtain Conway's release?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris is in communication with the French authorities with a view to ascertaining whether, in view of the considerations advanced, they would be prepared to release Mr. Conway.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE (PRESIDENCY).

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who is the acting president of the Disarmament Conference at the present time; and what steps it is proposed to take to fill the vacancy created by the death of Mr. Arthur Henderson?

The PRIME MINISTER: No vice-president of the Disarmament Conference was appointed. The nomination of a


successor to the late Mr. Arthur Henderson is a matter for consideration by the Council of the League of Nations, by which Mr. Henderson was appointed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANZIG.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the situation at Danzig; and whether the decisions taken by the Council of the League of Nations at its last session on this question have now been carried out by the Senate?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Council of the League of Nations at its last session decided that the President of the Danzig Senate should be requested to submit, through the League High Commissioner, at the January session of the Council, a report on the action taken by the Senate in accordance with the Council's recommendations. This report has not yet been received, but I have every hope that it will be available before next month's meeting of the Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (MILITARY DISPOSITIONS).

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps, if any, have been taken by His Majesty's Government arising out of the large concentration of Italian forces in Libya; whether the Egyptian Government is making any increases in the strength of the Egyptian army and under what treaty or other enactment it is authorised to place these forces under British officers; and whether any works of fortification and road construction have been carried out by the Egyptian authorities on the western frontier of Egypt at the suggestion of the British High Commissioner?

The PRIME MINISTER: It would not be in the public interest to answer the first and last parts of this question. As regards the second part, I have no information that the Egyptian Government is making any increase in the strength of the Egyptian Army. Since 1924 no portion of the Egyptian Army has been under the executive command of any British officer. The question, therefore, of treaties and enactments governing this subject does not arise.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is it not the case that a very great measure of control is maintained by the British Government over the affairs of Egypt, and have they no intention of allowing the Egyptian Government to be recognised by the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that that point hardly arises out of these questions on the Army.

Viscountess ASTOR: Did not the Foreign Secretary give a complete answer on the point?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

DESTROYER PROGRAMME.

Mr. EMRYS-EVANS: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when the destroyer flotilla of the 1935 programme will be laid down?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, orders have now been placed for the flotilla leader and eight destroyers of the 1935 programme, and they will be laid down during the course of the next few months. In addition, it is proposed to order a further flotilla of seven vessels later in the financial year, after a Supplementary Estimate has been presented. As explained in the White Paper, a Supplementary Navy Estimate will be presented to Parliament at a later date to deal with the excess on Navy Vote A, and the additional expenditure resulting from certain special measures which have been found necessary. Provision will be made in this Supplementary Estimate for the further flotilla and also for some small vessels which have recently been ordered for the Royal Navy as additions to the 1935 programme.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Do I understand that the Admiralty are going to order, in the current financial year, seven additional destroyers which have never yet been included in the Estimates?

Lord STANLEY: That is our proposed course of action, and we are going to submit a Supplementary Estimate to the House.

Mr. D. L. DAVIES: Will the Noble Lord tell the House whether it is the intention of the authorities to make provision for dual firing in these ships?

Lord STANLEY: No, Sir.

POST-WAR CAPITAL SHIPS.

Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many capital ships, super-battleships, of post-war design have been built up to date; and what proportion of those built belong to the British Navy?

Lord STANLEY: Only two capital ships of post-war design have been completed, both of which belong to the Royal Navy. In addition, there are eight building or projected, all of which belong to foreign Powers. This does not include the three completed "Deutschlands" of the German Navy. One capital ship of the Royal Navy and eight of foreign navies were not completed until after the War, but are of war design.

Mr. DAVIDSON: In view of the misrepresentations which have been made in broadcast speeches by Members of the Government, will the Noble Lord be good enough to draw their particular attention to the reply he has given to-day?

Lord STANLEY: The misrepresentations were on the other side.

CRUISERS.

Mr. DAVIDSON: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the comparative cruiser strength of the first six naval Powers of the world, and the respective number of cruisers now being built by those Powers?

Lord STANLEY: I would call the attention of the hon. Member to the Command Paper "Fleets" which is being issued to-morrow morning, and in which he will find the full information he requires.

Mr. DAVIDSON: Is not the cruiser strength of the British Navy still far ahead of that of any other naval Power in the world?

Lord STANLEY: The hon. Member will be able to satisfy himself on that point when he reads the return.

ATTEMPTED SABOTAGE (DEVONPORT).

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can make any statement regarding the inquiries into acts of sabotage to British warships in Devonport dockyard?

Lord STANLEY: Two cases of attempted sabotage have occurred this year in His Majesty's ships in dockyard hands at Devonport, namely in the submarine "Oberon" and in His Majesty's ship "Royal Oak." Inquiries into these cases are proceeding, and I am unable to make any further statement at the present time.

CIVIL STAFF, GIBRALTAR.

Mr. KELLY: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, the number of civilians employed at Gibraltar by the Admiralty in October, 1933, 1934, and 1935?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The numbers of civil staff employed in the naval establishments at Gibraltar on 1st October, 1933, 1934 and 1935, were 1,387, 1,495 and 1,527 respectively.

AIRCRAFT.

Mr. SIMMONDS: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of ships in the Royal Navy and in the navy of the United States of America which carry one or more aircraft as part of their normal complement?

Lord STANLEY: 28 catapult ships and five aircraft carriers of the Royal Navy are fitted to carry aircraft. The corresponding number in the United States Navy is 45.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Does that mean that the American Navy Department attaches greater importance to the use of aircraft in connection with naval warfare than we do?

Lord STANLEY: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (CONSTITUTIONS).

Mr. LUNN: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what changes are in contemplation in the constitutions of the West Indian colonies or in that of any particular colony; what stage has


been reached to secure public discussion in the colonies concerned; and whether any changes will be submitted to this House before being put into effect?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Proposals for constitutional changes in the Windward Islands and Leeward Islands have been fully debated in the local Legislatures in those Colonies. It is intended, after consideration of the views of unofficial members thus obtained, to submit to His Majesty in Council a proposal to amend the constitutions of Grenada, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent in the Windward Islands, where the elective principle already exists, so as to provide for unofficial majorities in the several Legislatures in accordance with the recommendations of the Closer Union Commission, the Governor retaining full overriding powers. In the Leeward Islands the elective principle exists only in Dominica. It would be applied also to Antigua, St. Kitts-Nevis and Montserrat, and in all these presidencies changes would be made by local ordinance similar to those in the Windward Islands. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. LUNN: Should not the suggestion in the last part of the question be complied with?

Mr. THOMAS: No one knows better than my hon. Friend that I have not departed in any way from ordinary procedure. The usual method is through the Colonial Office Vote.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES (NATIVE LABOUR).

Mr. LUNN: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with a view to preventing the over-recruiting of natives in British colonies and protectorates for work away from their own homes, he will secure the appointment of labour departments in all such territories.

Mr. THOMAS: With the possible exception of dependencies in the Western Pacific there is comparatively little actual recruiting of natives for work away from their homes, in the Colonies and Protectorates for the affairs of which I am responsible, and I am satisfied that in those dependencies there are adequate arrangements for ensuring that no over recruiting takes place. I may, however,

mention that the attention of all Colonial Governments was recently drawn, by my predecessor, to the importance of ensuring that there are adequate arrangements, whether by the creation of labour departments or otherwise, for the regular inspection of the conditions of employment in the territories under their Administration.

Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman, now that he is Secretary of State for the Colonies, give consideration to this matter of the establishment of a Labour Department in each of the Colonies?

Mr. THOMAS: I have already done that. In a later answer I show that I am giving special attention to it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that there is extensive recruitment in Northern Rhodesia for work on the copper belt, or does his answer refer to recruitment for other areas?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I have given.

Mr. McENTEE: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "comparatively little"? Can he give us any figures which would enable us to judge?

Mr. THOMAS: I could not give any figures, but it would be little compared with previously existing methods.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must know whether his answer referred to recruitment for the territories concerned or for outside territories. That is what we want to know—whether it is extensive recruitment in Northern Rhodesia for the copper belt in Northern Rhodesia or for outside areas?

Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously not read the question. It does not refer to any particular Colony but to the Colonies as a whole, and I answered the question as applying to the Colonies as a whole. If my right hon. Friend puts a question on Northern Rhodesia, I will answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL LOANS.

Sir PERCY HURD: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government will appoint a committee


representative of the Colonial and British treasuries, the Crown agents, and banking and financial experts to consider means of easing the burden on Colonial exchequers by using the present era of cheap money to create a new Imperial loan stock to replace existing Colonial loans with due regard to the rights of present stock holders?

Mr. THOMAS: The possibility of converting outstanding Colonial loans is under constant review, and, where an option exists or is about to mature, advantage is taken of the opportunity to convert or repay the loan. I do not think the appointment of a committee such as is suggested would serve any useful purpose, since no option at present exists in respect of any outstanding loan of which advantage to convert or repay has not been taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE, JERUSALEM.

Mr. RANKIN: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a scheme has yet been evolved for raising the necessary funds for the restoration of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem; and whether he is satisfied that the delay in carrying out the necessary repairs will not endanger this historic structure.

Mr. THOMAS: The expert's report on the repairs which are necessary in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre will be published in the course of the next few days. His recommendations and the means of raising the necessary funds will then be considered by the Palestine Government, as soon as possible, in consultation with representatives of the religious bodies concerned. Meanwhile, certain temporary measures have been carried out by the Government, but it is doubtful whether these will be effective for more than a few months longer, and it is realised that the matter is therefore urgent.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will there be control in some way so as to prevent religious riots, which have a bad effect on the community?

Mr. THOMAS: Consideration will be given to the prevention of riots, and

especially to Christian people quarrelling among themselves.

Mr. BELLENGER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea Low many religious bodies are concerned in this matter of the Holy Sepulchre?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not know the number, but I will make inquiries.

EDUCATION.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present approximate proportion of the school population of Palestine educated in British or British-controlled schools; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the near future to improve the situation so far as availability of English education in that mandated territory is concerned?

Mr. THOMAS: The High Commissioner in Council is empowered to regulate the instruction given at all "public schools" and "assisted schools" in Palestine, other than religious instruction at "assisted schools." Special attention is being paid to the teaching of English in all schools maintained by Government, where it can appropriately be taught, and additional measures for its extension are under active consideration. The education in all schools maintained by Government and in a considerable number of other schools is on English lines adapted, where necessary, to local conditions. According to the latest statistics 58 per cent. of the total school population is educated at "public schools." Separate figures for "assisted" and other schools are not available.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to how many British teachers there are in Palestine who can teach English to the natives?

Mr. THOMAS: I will make inquiries.

NEW TRUNK ROAD (JAFFA AND HAIFA).

Captain STRICKLAND: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total estimated expenditure of completing the new trunk road between Jaffa and Haifa; what mileage is now complete; what is the present number of workers employed on the undertaking; and what is the approximate present monthly rate of expenditure on the work?

Mr. THOMAS: The estimated cost of completing the road is £250,000 excluding the cost of any land, buildings or crops that might have to be expropriated for the purpose. Eighteen miles are now complete. No work is actually in progress at the moment, but construction will be resumed shortly on a further section of the road, giving employment to 150 men for about three months, and involving a monthly expenditure of about £1,500.

Captain STRICKLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for the delay in the completion of this work?

Mr. THOMAS: I am inquiring as to the reason, but I assume that it is climatic.

MEDICAL LICENCES.

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the protests of the Jewish agency against the restriction of medical licences in Palestine to persons who are naturalised and the fact that a number of Jewish doctors of German nationality are anxious to set up practice in Palestine, he will state the reason for the promulgation of the ordinance restricting medical licences in this manner?

Mr. THOMAS: The Medical Practitioners (Amendment) Ordinance, 1935, places no restriction on the number of licences to practise medicine which may be granted to Palestinian citizens by birth or persons who became Palestinian citizens or received permission to remain permanently in Palestine on or before 1st December, 1935. The quota restriction imposed by the Ordinance affects only persons who became Palestinian citizens or received permission to remain permanently in Palestine after that date. Further, persons who will be employed solely in the practice of medicine in or on behalf of any recognised medical or scientific institution will be exempt from the quota. The reason for the enactment of this Ordinance was that, in view of the great influx of medical practitioners in recent years, the profession was becoming overcrowded, a situation which bad given rise to abuses, and had seriously affected the livelihood of established and reputable practitioners.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the established recognised medical practitioners did not ask for this Ordinance, and that

it affects merely the unfortunate refugees from Germany?

Mr. THOMAS: I am aware of the fact that there were a certain number of medical practitioners in Palestine, that owing to the unfortunate circumstances in Germany there was a large influx of others, and that those engaged in the medical profession asked for some protection for their position—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Not a single one.

Mr. THOMAS: —and what I have read to the House indicates that steps were taken on their request.

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. May I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, whether the right hon. Gentleman will cultivate the art of brevity?

IMMIGRATION.

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the second half-yearly immigration schedule for Palestine was issued; why the delay occurred in the issuing of the certificates; and whether, in order to avoid uncertainty and dislocation, such delays will in future be avoided?

Mr. THOMAS: The schedule for the half-year ending 31st March, 1936, has not yet been determined, but an advance of 1,000 certificates was issued at the beginning of November. The proposals of the Jewish Agency for this schedule were unavoidably delayed and were only submitted by them on 6th December; these are now receiving consideration by the High Commissioner.

LEVANT FAIR (BRITISH EXHIBITORS).

Captain STRICKLAND: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the recent substantial increase in British exports to Palestine, steps are being taken to provide the same encouragement for British firms to participate in the Levant Fair of 1936 at Tel-Aviv as was given when the fair was last held in 1934; and whether he has any information to show that the number of exhibitors on this occasion is likely to be greater.

Mr. MORGAN: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department how the assistance being given to British firms in connection with the forthcoming Levant Fair at Tel-Aviv, in the mandated territory


of Palestine, compares with the assistance recently given in a similar connection with regard to the fair at Brussels?

Captain EUAN WALLACE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Department of Overseas Trade is most anxious to encourage participation by British firms in next year's fair at Tel-Aviv, and arrangements have already been made to instal an official information bureau, as in 1934, and to make suitable references to the fair in the Board of Trade Journal. I have no information at present as to whether the number of exhibitors in the fair of 1936 is likely to exceed the number in 1934. I should explain that the Brussels Exhibition held this year was a universal international exhibition of six months duration, whereas the Tel-Aviv Fair is a trade fair held biennially and for a period of one month. No comparison of the expenditure by the Department of Overseas Trade in these two cases would in these circumstances be of real value.

Captain STRICKLAND: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be prepared to advise His Majesty's Government to make any special grant in order to encourage an increase of British exhibitors at this important fair?

Captain WALLACE: No, Sir; not more than we are doing.

KENYA (LIVESTOCK CONTROL).

Mr. McENTEE: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any information regarding the committee which has been set up in Kenya Colony to inquire into the possibility of establishing a livestock or meat industries control board; and whether this board will be concerned solely with European farmers' production or whether any steps will be taken to extend help to native producers also?

Mr. THOMAS: I have no information about this committee beyond the names of its members and its terms of reference, particulars of which I am sending to the hon. Member; but I have no reason to doubt that the committee will take into consideration the production of livestock and meat by natives as well as by European farmers.

CYPRUS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give an undertaking that His Majesty's Government do not in any circumstances propose to hand over Cyprus to Greece now that the Royal house has been restored?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly, Sir. His Majesty's Government have no intention of handing over Cyprus to any foreign Power.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement with regard to the situation in Cyprus; whether any works are being or have been carried out on the island with a view to equipping it as a naval or air base; whether he is aware that the recent return of the King of the Hellenes to Greece has given rise to the belief that the rendition of Cyprus to Greece is pending; and what means, if any, are proposed to ascertain the wishes of the people of Cyprus with regard to any change in their constitutional position?

Mr. THOMAS: The general situation in Cyprus remains satisfactory. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative: and with regard to the unfounded rumours alluded to in the third part I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have just given to the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). With regard to the last part of the question, no changes in the constitutional position are at present in contemplation.

Mr. GALLACHER: In the answer that the right hon. Gentleman made to Question No. 25 he made a statement that the Government had no intention of handing over Cyprus to a foreign Power, but I understand that British foreign policy—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must ask a question, and not make a statement.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British foreign policy is behind the return of the King of Greece and that Greece is becoming the puppet State of Britain in the Mediterranean, and that therefore his answer to Question No. 25 is doubtful?

SEYCHELLES (NEWSPAPERS, ORDINANCE).

Mr. LEACH: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he accepts responsibility for the new Ordinance No. 20, 1935, Seychelles Colony, which makes it impossible for a free Press to exist and which obliges all newspapers to publish free of charge all official communications of any kind insisted upon by the Governor immediately upon issue and places all newspapers under other onerous obligations?

Mr. THOMAS: This ordinance was introduced by the Governor with the prior knowledge and approval of my predecessor, and its provisions are based on those of similar legislation in other colonies. It was passed unanimously by the Legislative Council. The ordinance is intended to ensure that newspapers are published by responsible and substantial persons, that they may be suppressed by process of law on conviction of serious offences, and that the Government has the power to secure effective contradiction of misrepresentations when it is considered necessary in the public interest.

Mr. LEACH: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that one of these newspapers has already had to close down, that others are considering the need to do the same, and what chance on earth is there for a free Press in this colony?

Mr. THOMAS: I do not know any of the details, but if the hon. Member will give me information I will inquire. I am sure he, like other Members of the House, would like to see a number of things that call themselves the Press, suppressed.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Legislative Council which passed this ordinance has an official majority?

Mr. THOMAS: I am not sure, but I will certainly inquire.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend to his colleagues in the Cabinet a similar ordinance to be applied in this country?

TANGANYIKA (NATIVE LABOUR).

Mr. PALING: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many inspectors

are there in Tanganyika whose duty it is to supervise the wages and the provision of adequate food for native labourers and the recruitment of labourers; and whether such duties are being adequately carried out?

Mr. THOMAS: The constant supervision of labour conditions is among the normal duties carried out by the 160 officers engaged in the district administration of Tanganyika. Four administrative officers are seconded for whole-time employment on labour duties, while one permanent appointment of labour officer has been made and others are contemplated. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. PALING: Is it not the fact that there are a growing number of complaints about the inadequacy of the food and the shockingly low wages paid to a large proportion of those labourers at the present time; and in view of that does the right hon. Gentleman think that there are really enough inspectors to ensure that these somewhat helpless people shall get their rights?

Mr. THOMAS: I am inquiring into that aspect of the question.

Captain DOWER: Is it not true that under British administration the natives of Tanganyika are much better nourished than they were under any previous administration?

Mr. PALING: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many native labourers are engaged in wage-earning occupations in Tanganyika for the last full year for which figures are available; and how many have been secured by recruitment?

Mr. THOMAS: It is estimated that in 1934 approximately 250,000 natives were employed as wage earners in Tanganyika of whom about 5 per cent. were recruited.

Mr. PALING: asked the Secretary of State for the Coloines whether he intends to re-establish the labour department in Tanganyika?

Mr. THOMAS: I propose to defer consideration of this matter until I have received the observations of the Tanganyika Government on the communication to which I referred at the end of the reply which I gave just now to the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn).

CIVIL AND COLONIAL SERVICES (EXCHANGE OF OFFICIALS).

Mr. KELLY: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the principle of exchanging higher-grade officials in the British Civil Service and in the Colonial Service is actually in operation; and how many such changes have been made in the last two years?

Mr. THOMAS: A system of interchange between the Colonial Office and the Colonial Service has been in operation for some years. Since 1st January, 1934, five administrative officers have been appointed on secondment from the Colonial Service to the Colonial Office, usually for a term of two years, and three members of the administrative staff of the Colonial Office have been similarly seconded for service under Colonial Governments, in addition to officers sent abroad on special missions.

Mr. KELLY: Is there any intention to extend this principle?

Mr. THOMAS: I think it is a good principle to exchange people. They get the benefit of experience on both sides.

AFRICA (BRITISH COLONIES, AREA).

Mr. CREECH JONES: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the area of the British Colonies in the continent of Africa; and what proportion is this of the whole continent?

Mr. THOMAS: The area of British Colonial Dependencies in Africa (including Protectorates and Territories held by His Majesty's Government under Mandate and the South African High Commission Territories) is approximately 1,876,131 square miles, or about 16 per cent of the total area of Africa.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has ascertained that his assumption on Monday night that the whole of Africa was in the British Empire is inaccurate?

Mr. THOMAS: No. That was not necessary, for the reason that my assumption was based on the statement that Africa was not part of the British Empire.

Mr. MORRISON: May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SPEAKER: This seems to be developing into a debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AERODROMES.

Mr. DAY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air particulars of the number of aerodromes built or reconstructed in England during 1933 and 1934, and the number and particulars of those at present in construction; and whether any protests have been raised by the residents in the immediate vicinity of the sites of proposed aerodromes?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): On the assumption that the hon. Member refers to Royal Air Force aerodromes, 41 such aerodromes have been under construction or reconstruction in the current financial year, including 11 sites where the work was begun before 1st April last. As regards 1933 and 1934, the hon. Member will find particulars in Air Estimates for those years under Vote 4.B—Part I. There have been protests in some cases, but local opinion appears to vary widely.

Mr. DAY: Are protests generally made because some aerodromes are built on good arable land when there is other land in the neighbourhood?

Sir P. SASSOON: You cannot have a large Air Force if you do not have aerodromes.

Lord APSLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to the price paid per acre?

RECRUITMENT.

Mr. POTTS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of persons who presented themselves for recruitment into the Royal Air Force for the year 1934, and the number rejected upon medical grounds or other causes?

Sir P. SASSOON: During the year ended 31st March, 1935, 16,389 definite applications for enlistment into the Royal Air Force were received; 7,085 of these applicants were medically examined, 2,786 were found medically fit and 2,347 were attested.

HOME DEFENCE SECTION.

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many of


the squadrons of the home defence section of the Royal Air Force are bombing squadrons; and how many other squadrons there are in this section?

Sir P. SASSOON: Thirty-three of the 61 squadrons stationed at home are bombing squadrons.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

PRIVATE FLYING.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when it is hoped to introduce amending legislation to the Air Navigation Act, 1921, and to implement the accepted recommendations of the Gorell Committee on Private Flying and any other matters?

Sir P. SASSOON: I hope to introduce this Bill either immediately before or immediately after the Christmas Recess.

Captain BALFOUR: If a Bill is to be introduced after Christmas, will it be in the hands of Members before we adjourn?

Sir P. SASSOON: I will let the hon. and gallant Member know.

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS (SUBSIDY).

Mr. GARRO-JONES: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will incorporate in the new scheme for subsidising Imperial Airways some pro- vision to surcharge, in favour of the State, any capital appreciation of that company's shares which results from the State subsidy?

Sir P. SASSOON: While I am not in favour of a provision in the form suggested by the hon. Member, I can assure him that agreements with the company will include adequate safeguards against the possibility of subsidies resulting in excessive profits.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman kept in mind that the shares of this company have appreciated more than ten-fold in the last few years, and that the only dividend basis for the capital appreciation is represented by the State subsidy? If so, will he give honest consideration to a scheme which I am prepared to submit to him to tap this capital appreciation?

Sir P. SASSOON: I shall be glad to consider any scheme.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Honestly, I said.

Mr. BELLENGER: Does the right hon. Member suggest that he proposes to take steps to carry out what he said in his original answer?

TRANS-ATLANTIC SERVICE.

Mr. SIMMONDS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has received any inquiries or applications other than from Imperial Airways, Limited, and associated companies for permission or for assistance to operate a trans-Atlantic air service; and what reply he has given?

Sir P. SASSOON: Some preliminary inquiries have been received in regard to a suggested North Atlantic service. Facilities for visiting Croydon, which the company making the inquiries in question requested in connection with the preparation of estimates of cost, were arranged last September. No detailed proposals have been furnished.

Mr. SIMMONDS: May we understand that the proposals of this company and of any other company other than Imperial Airways will be given the most sympathetic consideration by my right hon. Friend?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

SPEED LIMIT.

Mr. REMER: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the speed limit restrictions in the city of Birmingham; whether he is aware that the whole of the city has been restricted, that many miles of roads so restricted have no street lamps, have no houses on either side of the road, and that even new arterial roads with double carriage ways are included in the restriction limit; and what steps he is taking to have these restrictions removed?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I caused a local inquiry to be held into this matter, and, having received the report, shall give my decision.

Mr. REMER: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the restrictions on the main


road north from Newcastle-under-Lyme; whether he is aware that for 14 miles, starting before Trentham and a considerable distance beyond Newcastle-under-Lyme, this road is restricted under the 30-mile limit; that long stretches of this road have no street lamps and no houses on either side; and what steps he is taking to have these restrictions removed, in view of the inconvenience caused?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The exact limits of the road which my hon. Friend has in mind are not clear as Trentham is south of Newcastle.-under-Lyme, but in any event I understand that the Corporation of Newcastle-under-Lyme will make an Order derestricting a section of the road.

TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT, ELEPHANT AND CASTLE.

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister of Transport whether a decision has now been arrived at by the Government to finally abandon the proposed scheme of traffic improvements at the Elephant and Castle?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The London County Council abandoned the scheme in 1933 in agreement with my predecessor. I am prepared to review the scheme again.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Minister of Transport the progress made by railway companies concerned in their investigation of the question of electrifying the railways of South Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The railway companies concerned have informed me that they are examining the case for electrifying certain lines in the areas referred to, but that their inquiries have not yet reached a stage where a definite decision can be taken.

Mr. CHORLTON: When is a decision likely to be received?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That question could be more appropriately addressed to the railway companies. I shall always be ready to convey any representations.

Mr. PALING: Are these schemes of electrification in addition to the work to be done under the £26,000,000 loan scheme for the railway companies?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: They would be if they were undertaken.

Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to speed up this electrification in view of the fact that it takes three or four times as long to get from Leeds and Bradford to the West Coast of Lancashire a it does to get to London and the South Coast?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If the hon. Member has any proposals to make, I shall be glad to lay them before the proper quarters.

Sir BROGRAVE BEAUCHAMP: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now any further information to give in respect to the electrification of the Liverpool Street to Chingford suburban line service; and whether such a scheme is likely to be proceeded with at an early date?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have been informed by the London and North Eastern Railway Company that as the programme of improvements in passenger transport facilities in the London area, announced last June, is already very extensive and involves as great a burden of expenditure as can be undertaken at present, it would be impracticable to enlarge the schemes so as to include the electrification of the line between Liverpool Street and Chingford. The company have assured me, however, that the situation will receive further consideration when the developments at present in hand have made further progress and have become self-supporting.

Mr. McENTEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the line referred to the congestion is almost ten times as great as on some of the other lines where the most alterations are being made?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I was not aware of that fact, but the congestion is being relieved by the programme already announced, and I hope that it will be followed by other schemes.

Mr. McENTEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the proposed alterations and new construction do not touch the congestion in any way on the line referred to in the question?

GREAT WEST ROAD.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: asked the Minister of Transport whether, now that the Great West Road has been narrowed by the construction of a central division, he will consider laying down cyclist tracks on either side of this road; and whether the section of the Great West Road near Colnbrook, which has been closed to traffic for a long time, will be reopened in the near future?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In answer to the first part of the question, I am discussing with the Middlesex County Council the provision of cycle tracks on the Great West Road in so far as such tracks are practicable. In answer to the second part of the question, the date depends on the result of the experiment now being conducted in a new road surfacing material.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: Is the Minister aware that this experiment is to continue over a number of years and that great congestion is due to the fact that this particular section of the road so far has not been reopened?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the great increase in road accidents, he will consider the introduction of legislation that will compel pedestrians to cross roads only at appointed places or when the roads are clear?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member is mistaken in his assumption that there has been a great increase in road accidents. During the 38 weeks ending 30th November, 1935, there was a reduction of 11,090 in the number of persons killed and injured in Great Britain as compared with the corresponding period of last year. The reduction was most marked in the Metropolitan area. While I share his desire that pedestrians should cross the roads only at appointed places where it is possible to provide such places at reasonable intervals, there are difficulties which I cannot ignore in the way of compulsion.

Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that his regulations are being carried out satisfactorily with regard to pedestrian crossings?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think that there is a great improvement. We have endeavoured to make a contribution towards safety on these roads, and where we could get pedestrian barriers the contribution would be even more secure.

Mr. TINKER: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to a fatal accident which occurred on the new East Lancashire road, Liverpool to Manchester, at the end of Peel Lane, Astley, on Thursday, 21st November, when a, motor car struck a cyclist, killing the rider of the bicycle instantly; that the evidence given was to the effect that the motor car was travelling at 55 to 60 miles per hour and the cyclist was entering the East Lancashire road from a cross road; and will the Minister give consideration to having signs or markings put up to denote crossings, so that motor cars will reduce their speed when approaching them?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The coroner in this case stated that he did not agree that danger signs should be erected at this spot and said that people seeking to emerge into such roads as the East Lancashire road should pay attention to the dangers. The highway authority inform me that Peel Lane is a private road and that there is an unrestricted view from it of traffic on the new road. I will, however, pursue the matter further with the appropriate authority in order to determine what action can usefully be taken.

Miss RATHBONE: Is the Minister aware that in some parts of the East Coast they are using posts simply with the words "By-road," and that it is an enormous convenience to motorists and other traffic? Can he not see his way to make this system more universal?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The provision of these authorised signs is a matter within the jurisdiction of the appropriate highway authority, but I will do all I can to encourage the erection of proper and authorised signs at suitable places.

Mr. LEACH: Is it true that the right hon. Gentleman has reached the end of his resources?

Captain STRICKLAND: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to lay before the House any report on the causation of road accidents arising out of examination of this subject by the Road Safety Council established by him in the autumn of 1934?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the investigation undertaken by my Department, an interim report was published on 8th August and a full report will be issued after the end of this year.

ROAD DEVELOPMENT.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will issue a statement giving the names of the highway authorities whose schemes for works under the five-year road-development plan of the estimated cost of £27,000,000 are proposed to be begun in the year 1935–36, together with brief particulars of each scheme, and in each case the estimated cost, the amount to be contributed out of the Road Fund, the amount to be provided by the highway authority, and the amount, if any, to be provided by other parties?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 5th December last to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir J. LAMB: Is the Minister satisfied with the rate at which these schemes are being sent in?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: "Satisfied" is a psychological matter. I am never completely satisfied.

STREET LIGHTING.

Mr. GUY: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the report of the departmental committee on street lighting; and whether he proposes to put its recommendations into effect?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on this subject on 9th December to the hon. Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. GUY: If local authorities are prepared to carry out the recommendation will the right hon. Gentleman offer any hope of financial assistance out of the Road Fund?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is a hypothetical question. When the facts are ascertained will be the appropriate time for the Government to give a decision.

BERNERA ISLAND (FACILITIES).

Mr. MALCOLM MacMILLAN: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a grant for the purpose of blasting and blocking the narrow sound between the island of Lewis and the smaller island of Bernera in order that Bernera may be linked up by a road with the island of Lewis and bring the amenities of Lewis in touch with the people of Bernera Island by facilitating transport of passengers and goods?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The responsible highway authority ha-, made no application to me for a grant for the suggested new road, and doubtless they recognise that it could not be of sufficient general traffic value to attract a grant from the Road Fund.

RAILWAYS (EMPLOYMENT FIGURES).

Mr. EDE: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the employment figures in the railway industry taken in March and April last were not published till September; and will he state the reason for the delay of five months?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The census of railway staff taken during a week in March involves the collection, checking and compilation of much detailed information from every part of the country. As soon as the return is ready it is published.

RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY (REMISSION).

Mr. THORNE: asked the Minister of Transport whether the remission of railway passenger duty under the Cheap Trains Act, 1883, is still in operation; and, if so, whether he can state the amount of remission duty paid by the various railway companies for the past three years to the nearest available date?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Railway passenger duty ceased to be chargeable by virtue of the Finance Act, 1929. The railway companies then undertook to expend upon a special programme of works sums based upon the capitalised value of the duties remitted.

Mr. THORNE: Seeing that the railway companies have received this concession, will he try to persuade them to issue workmen's tickets until 8 o'clock in the morning?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not quite see the point of the hon. Member's question. The duty was remitted and the sums were or are being spent on capital works.

Mr. THORNE: Is not that a concession and, therefore, will he not try to persuade the railway companies to issue workmen's tickets until 8 o'clock?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The railway companies spend the money on capital works.

Mr. THURTLE: Is it not a fact that the railway companies have got this capital on which there is no charge, that is, that they pay no dividend upon it, and does not that mean that they have had a real concession?

MOTOR VEHICLES (DIESEL ENGINES).

Mr. CROWDER: asked the Minister of Transport in view of the fact that the London Passenger Transport Board is proposing to equip all its motor vehicles with Diesel engines, what steps are being taken by him to ensure that adequate arrangements are being made to protect the public against contamination of the atmosphere by the exhaust gases of these vehicles?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am aware of no sufficient evidence to show that these exhaust gases are damaging public health.

OMNIBUS FARES (STOKE-ON-TRENT).

Mr. MacLAREN: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take immediate action to settle the dispute that has arisen in Stoke-on-Trent, on the question of omnibus fares?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no power to intervene unless an appeal is made to me in accordance with Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.

TRAFFIC CONTROL (CAMDEN TOWN).

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the difficult and dangerous traffic conditions prevailing at the uncontrolled junction of Park Steet and Delaney Street, Camden Town; and whether he will consider the question of instituting some form of control at this place?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am approaching the local authority with a view to obtaining their collaboration in the

erection of traffic light signals at this and certain other junctions in the neighbourhood.

TRAMWAY SERVICE, EAST END.

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the present inadequacy of the No. 43 tramway service between the City, Shoreditch, and other districts; and whether he will inquire into the possibility of improving this service, especially during the rush hours, since large numbers of workpeople dependent on this service suffer serious inconvenience under the prevailing conditions?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am advised by the London Passenger Transport Board that they have made arrangements to increase the morning "peak" service on tramway route No. 43 as from to-morrow.

RIDGEWAY ROAD, SHEFFIELD.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: asked the Minister of Transport his reasons for issuing directions to be put in force that part of Ridgeway Road, Sheffield, which has no lamps upon it shall be deemed to be a road in a built-up area?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The length of the road to which the hon. Member refers was restricted by an Order made with my consent by the local authority concerned after due public notice. No objections were made. I have recently caused a review to be made of this and other roads in Sheffield, and I am advised that development of the area is continuing and that this road is used as one of the main routes to the city.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

NEW GOVERNMENT BUILDING, EDINBURGH.

Mr. GUY: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will take the necessary steps to ensure that only local labour is employed on the new Government buildings on the Calton site, Edinburgh?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Representations have already been made to the contractor selected for the foundations of the new Government offices in Edinburgh as to the great desirability of engaging local labour through the local Employment


Exchange, and I propose that similar representations should be made in respect of successive contracts.

Mr. MAXTON: Does this mean that national money which is being spent on this job is to be limited to Edinburgh workers, and that workers from distressed areas in Scotland may not be taken on?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: This is only a foundation contract, and I think that in Edinburgh and in Leith as well there are a number of men registered at the Employment Exchanges and, if there is a demand for more labour, they should be taken on.

Number of County Councillors.


County.
Representing landward area.
Representing large burghs.
Representing small burghs.
Total.


Aberdeen
…
…
54
—
19
73


Angus
…
…
30
11
29
70


Argyll
…
…
34
—
19
53


Ayr
…
…
41
24
26
91


Banff
…
…
23
—
22
45


Berwick
…
…
28
—
6
34


Bute
…
…
11
—
14
25


Caithness
…
…
22
—
14
36


Clackmannan
…
…
8
—
14
22


Dumfries
…
…
35
14
11
60


Dunbarton
…
…
34
22
16
72


East Lothian
…
…
26
—
20
46


Fife
…
…
46
24
40
110


Inverness
…
…
57
21
4
82


Kincardine
…
…
21
—
11
32


Kinross
…
…
11
—
4
15


Kirkcudbright
…
…
22
—
11
33


Lanark
…
…
53
36
3
92


Midlothian
…
…
34
—
21
55


Moray
…
…
22
—
22
44


Nairn
…
…
9
—
6
15


Orkney
…
…
20
—
11
31


Peebles
…
…
15
—
11
26


Perth
…
…
47
20
16
83


Renfrew
…
…
25
50
15
90


Ross and Cromarty
…
36
—
14
50


Roxburgh
…
…
28
—
24
52


Selkirk
…
…
7
—
23
30


Stirling
…
…
40
20
12
72


Sutherland
…
…
19
—
1
20


West Lothian
…
…
30
—
22
52


Wigtown
…
…
21
—
11
32


Zetland
…
…
24
—
12
36


Total
…
…
933
242
504
1,679

Mr. MATHERS: Is it not a fact that if Leith were taken alone it would be a distressed area?

Mr. MAXTON: So would Bridgeton.

COUNTY COUNCILS.

Mr. WESTWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give separately the number of councillors representing the landward area and the number representing the burghs on each of the Scottish county councils?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): As the reply involves a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider the introduction of legislation to amend the Rent Restrictions Act so far as they apply to Scotland, so as to put the onus of proof on the landlord in cases going into court that the tenant has received a rent book in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Act?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: If any rent book or similar document does not conform to the prescribed requirements, the landlord is liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds. The rent book or similar document is itself evidence on this point. In the circumstances no amending legislation appears to be called for.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the Minister aware that last week a decision was given in the Glasgow Sheriff Court to the effect that the onus of proof that the rent book had been given was upon the tenant; and, in view of the answer which he has now given, will he inform the Sheriff that that decision is wrong?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, Sir. I took the hon. Member's question to express anxiety that the rent book should be in conformity with the requirements prescribed in the Act. He has now raised another question which is different, and I would like to consider it.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would ask the Minister to look at my question. Does he not see that it is a specific question with regard to the onus of proof being placed upon the landlord and I now ask him whether he is aware that Sheriff Haldane in the Glasgow Sheriff Court gave a decision to the effect that it was on the tenant?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I think if the hon. Member will look again at his own question he will see that the interpretation which I have put upon it is quite natural, but I will certainly look at the point which he has now raised, and would be glad to discuss it with him.

MINE WORKERS (OVERTIME).

Mr. WESTWOOD: asked the Secretary for Mines what steps, if any, he has taken or proposes to take consequent upon the investigation into overtime in Scottish mines?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): Since the publication of the report of this investigation I have discussed the question of overtime generally, with particular reference to Scotland, with the Mining Association and with the Mineworkers' Federation and have also had correspondence with the Scottish coalowners. I have reason to believe that this has resulted in a substantial improvement in the situation. I am continuing to watch the position closely, and if I receive any specific complaints, I will have them investigated at once.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATE SCHOOLS (COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mr. EDE: asked the President of the Board of Education the present estimated cost to public funds of adopting the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on private schools; and whether he intends to introduce legislation to give effect to these recommendations?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The committee estimated that their recommendations could be satisfactorily carried out at an annual cost of £30,000, and I see no reason to dissent from this view. I can hold out no hope of Parliamentary time being at present available for what will be a complicated and probably contentious measure. In addition the local education authorities will be fully occupied during the next few years in giving effect to the Government's policy of educational reforms, and I should be reluctant to add to their burdens at the present time by legislation in the direction which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any increase in the inspection of private schools?

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps my hon. Friend would put down that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (RESERVE STOCKS).

Brigadier-General SPEARS: asked the Secretary of State for War whether a certificate guaranteeing the sufficiency of the Mowatt reserves of munitions will be given with the Army Estimates in


the coming year; whether such a certificate was given annually during the lifetime of the last Parliament; and, if not, whether he can make a statement to the House on the matter?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender): Since the War there have been no Mowatt reserves as such, and therefore no certificate in respect of them has been rendered. A certificate, however, guaranteeing the integrity of such war reserves as have actually been authorised by the Army Council to be accumulated up to the end of each financial year, has been, and will continue to be, rendered annually, not with the Army Estimates, but with the Appropriation Account. Page 53 of the 1933 Account shows its precise terms. This certificate is an accounting document giving an assurance that any reserve stocks actually provided by Parliament on earlier Army Estimates have not been dissipated in relief of later ones—it has no connection with the adequacy or otherwise of those stocks.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to keep the House sitting very late in the event of the Motion for the Suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope not. I never like to move the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule on a private Members' night, but the circumstances in this case are rather peculiar. I may explain that we consider it essential to get the Bill in connection with railway expenditure. We had hoped to get the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution last night. As the House is aware, in the case of any Bill which is based on a Financial Resolution, each separate stage must be taken on a separate day. If this Bill is to become law before we separate for Christmas, it must leave this House by next Tuesday, so that it may be dealt with in another place. Therefore, we have no time to spare. I must ask the House to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night for the sole purpose of getting the Committee stage of that Resolution. We propose to put the Report stage down as first Order

to-morrow, so that the Bill can be in the Vote Office to-morrow evening. We shall adhere, I hope, to the original arrangement of having the Second Reading of the Bill on Friday.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If the Prime Minister intends to take the Report stage of this Resolution as the first Order tomorrow, then necessarily there must be discussion on this issue to-morrow, because it will not be possible to debate it at any length to-night. In that case, how will he fit it in with the rest of the programme for to-morrow, particularly in relation to the Money Resolution concerning grants to local authorities in connection with transitional payments?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is impossible always, as the hon. Member knows from his experience, to answer a hypothetical question of that kind. As I explained in the last Parliament, I am always of a sanguine nature and I hope that the anticipations to which the hon. Member has given expression may not be realised. I hope that the further business may not be unduly prolonged. In other words, we must wait and see.

Mr. MAXTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing forward the Resolution about unemployment grants in the programme of business for to-morrow, so that it could be considered early, leaving routine matters like the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to take their chance later on?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member must remember that we have to get the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. We have no option in the matter. It must be passed by a certain date. With regard to the other Bill, the Government consider that it is essential because there are many things hanging on to it. There is the question of the details that will have to be pursued afterwards in raising the money and getting on with the work, which means providing employment. We think therefore that it should not be delayed. We shall make as much progress as we find we can make and I do not think it will be as difficult as the hon. Member opposite seems to feel at the moment.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings in Committee on Railways (Agreement) [Money] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the

provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 120.

Division No. 5.]
AYES.
[3.49 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Eckersley, P. T.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Edge, Sir W.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Ellis, Sir G.
Owen, Major G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Elliston, G. S.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Albery, I. J.
Elmley, Viscount
Patrick, C. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Peake, O.


Apsley, Lord
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Peat, C. U.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Assheton, R.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Petherick, M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Plugge, L. F.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gledhill, G.
Porritt, R. W.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Proctor, Major H. A.


Balniel, Lord
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Purbrick, R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Granville, E. L.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Rankin, R.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bernays, R. H.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Guy, J. C. M.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Blair, Sir R.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Reid, D. D. (Down)


Blindell, J.
Hannah, I. C.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boulton, W. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Remer, J. R.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Harvey, G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rothschild, J. A. de


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hepworth, J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Holdsworth, H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hopkinson, A.
Salt, E. W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Sanders, W. S.


Cary, R. A.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Savery, Servington


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
James, Wing-commander A. W.
Simmonds, O. E.


Chair, S. S. de
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Somerset, T.


Channon, H.
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Latham, Sir P.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Clarke, F. E.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Clarry, R. G.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Lees-Jones, J.
Storey, S.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Liddall, W. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Lloyd, G. W.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Lyons, A. M.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Critchley, A.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Turton, R. H.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Wakefield, W. W.


Crooke, J. S.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Wallace, Captain Euan


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Cross, R. H.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Magnay, T.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Maitland, A.
White, H. Graham


Dawson, Sir P.
Mander, G. le M.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


De la Bère, R.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Maxwell, S. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Donner, P. W.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Mill's, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Moreing, A. C.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Wragg, H.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Duggan, H. J.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.



Duncan, J. A. L.
Munro, P. M.
TELLERS POR THE AYES.—


Dunglass, Lord
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel




Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Ammon, C. G.
Banfield, J. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Barnes, A. J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Batey, J.




Bellenger, F.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Price, M. P.


Benson, G.
Holland, A.
Quibell, J. D.


Bevan, A.
Hopkin, D.
Riley, B.


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ritson, J.


Brooke, W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Rowson, G.


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Salter, Dr. A.


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirby, B. V.
Sexton, T. M.


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Shinwell, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, F.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Compton, J.
Leonard, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dalton, H.
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lunn, W.
Stephen, C.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Thorne, W.


Dobbie, W.
McGovern, J.
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Walkden, A. G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walker, J.


Frankel, D.
Marklew, E.
Watkins. F. C.


Gallacher, W.
Marshall, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Gardner, B. W.
Mathers, G.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Maxton, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Gibbins, J.
Messer, F.
Westwood, J.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parker, H. J. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.



Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, G. D.
Potts, J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mt. Groves.

BILL PRESENTED.

COTTON SPINNING INDUSTRY BILL,

"to provide for the elimination of redundant spinning machinery in cotton mills in Great Britain by means of a Board having power to acquire property and to borrow and levy money; for the making of certain payments to the said Board out of the Consolidated Fund or moneys provided by Parliament and the making of certain payments by the said Board to the Exchequer; for regulating the use of cotton-spinning machinery; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Runciman; supported by Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. William Morrison, and Dr. Burgin; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 10.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to divide the Government of India Act, 1935, into two portions and to make in the wording thereof certain changes which either are consequential on the division or remove minor errors; to provide for the certification, the deposit with the Rolls of Parliament, and the printing of the said portions as

if they were separate Acts of Parliament; to secure that the said portions have effect in lieu of the said Government of India Act, 1935, as from the date of the passing of that Act; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." [Government of India (Reprinting) Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to Rothesay Corporation Gas." [Rothesay Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to the Bridge of Allan Gas." [Bridge of Allan Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to the National Trust for Scotland." [National Trust for Scotland Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to Perth


Corporation." [Perth Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

ROPHESAY CORPORATION GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [Lords.]

Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act of 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

BRIDGE OF ALLAN GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [Lords.]

Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act of 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

NATIONAL TRUST FOR SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [Lords.]

Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act of 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

PERTH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [Lords.]

Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act of 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REPRINTING) BILL. [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 11.]

MINING INDUSTRY.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. WATKINS: I beg to move,
That this House is of opinion that the miners of this country are justified in their claim for an immediate national increase in their wages.
Whatever criticism hon. Members may have against the Motion, it cannot be criticised on the ground of being either obscure or complicated. It is exceedingly simple and, I trust, for that reason will receive very wide support. There may be some surprise from hon. Members that I, who represent a London constituency many miles removed from the nearest coalfield, should have tabled this Motion dealing with a critical situation in the mining industry, but I feel that it is sometimes useful—and I trust it will be so to-day—that someone should speak on this matter who is not directly or even indirectly concerned with or attached to the mining industry. There are many hon. Friends of mine on these benches whose lives have been lived in that industry and whose trade union experience has been gathered in it, and I understand that on the other side of the House there are mineowners who can supplement what I have to say from that particular point of view, so I want to represent the point of view of the man in the street or the woman in the home with regard to this matter.
Although I trust it will not occur it is quite possible that a strike will begin in this industry within a very short space of time. I can well remember that years ago, when a strike was threatened, the reaction of the public to that threat was almost invariably one of hostility. The threat was regarded as having been fomented by firebrands and paid agitators. Those two terms have now disappeared completely from the vocabulary of political controversy, and it is to-day generally understood and well realised that a strike in the coal industry would not be the result of unfair agitation on the part of the leaders but would be the last weapon that a desperate man, face to face with terrible conditions, could use.
An hon. Member in an interesting speech the other day spoke about a referendum. I submit that if the Resolution that I am now moving were submitted to a referendum in this country

it would receive overwhelming support, because the great mass of the people—not the miners only, not even organised trade unionists, but the ordinary people of the country—are quite certain that the nation as a nation ought to guarantee a fair deal to the mining population. I go further. I believe that the verdict of the community, were the threatened strike to occur, would be that the strike was a great act of national righteousness, and the responsibility for the strike would be placed upon the mine owners or this House or the Government. Men and women in my constituency are tremendously interested in the problem of the miners. Their desire is that justice should be given to the miners. I realise that negotiations are now going on, and I am very anxious not to speak one sentence that would make those negotiations for an honourable settlement any more difficult.
I have had some experience in negotiations, in local negotiations but more particularly in national negotiations. The whole of my working life has been spent and and my trade union experience has been gathered in the railway industry, where we have national negotiating machinery that works exceedingly well. Although the analogy between the railway industry and the mining industry is not an exact analogy—I suppose an exact analogy is almost impossible in this world—it is a reasonable analogy to draw. The railway industry, like the mining industry, is not a unit. There are four great separate undertakings in the railway world, with different boards of directors, different capital, different managers, different geographical positions, all separate and distinct the one from the other. In the mining industry there are a dozen great mine-fields spread about the country. We in the railway industry have found that national negotiations give a maximum satisfaction both to the workpeople and to the management. That machinery- has been in existence and functioning ever since it was established by the Railways Act of 1921. I do not want to press that point too strongly, but it does seem to me that a method of settling wage disputes or disputes regarding conditions of labour that works perfectly satisfactorily in the railway industry could at least be accepted and tried in the mining industry.
The problem of coal has been before this House for 150 years. The first Act of Parliament was passed in the year 1778. It was an Act to remove chattel slavery from the Scottish collieries. Ever since then till now this House has concerned itself and has been obliged to concern itself with the problem of the mining industry. There have been nine or 10 Royal Commissions during the last 60 years and about 30 Acts of Parliament. This House has been busy about the mining problem, and yet the sad fact to-day is that in spite of all that endeavour there stands the miner, the central tragic figure in British industry, under-paid, leading a life of risk and undergoing hardships; and all the endeavours of each successive Government from 1778 until this Parliament have not given to him the justice to which he is entitled. The conditions in the minefields are deplorable. I want to read an extract from a wonderful speech. We all hear hundreds of speeches, and most of them we forget, but this speech I shall never forget. It was made by Mr. Joseph Jones at the Trade Unions Congress, in September of this year. He said:
No words of mine can adequately express the wretchedness which prevails in the coalfields of the country. I do not desire to harrow the feelings of Congress, but I feel it my duty to state that there are countless numbers of miners and their dependants who have lost hope. Fear is at the helm, insecurity day by day haunts them. They are losing courage. Entire communities are in utter despair. They are unmanned and unknown. The time has cone when something should be done to bring succour and relief to them. In countless thousands of miners' homes the happiness they knew has been turned out of doors. The miners say We have been stripped by the employers of almost everything save our self-reseect and our courage to resist, and if the Mining Association will listen to no language other than industrial conflict, then that is the language we shall be compelled to use.'
I have been in the mining areas. I have been in the miners' homes, and I am proud to say that miners have been in my home. I have seen the conditions under which they live. The fact that three-quarters of a million of men are compelled to live on an average wage of 44s. 8d. per week should bring home a sense of responsibility to everyone in this House, not only to the miners' leaders but to people like myself who are not directly associated with the industry.

I have here two pay-tickets of friends of mine in South Wales. One of those men is a surface worker with a wage of £2 3s. 3d. at the end of his week's work. The other one—I do not know whether he is called a mines carpenter or a mines timber-man—has a wage of £2 8s. 6d. per week. Each of these men has to pay out 10s. per week. One of the men has 33s. left of his 43s. for himself, his wife and two children. The Noble Lord the Minister without Portfolio spoke the other day about 10s. per head as a food allowance. These people have not got 10s. per head. They have at the most 8s. per head, and if they spend the 8s. on food there is nothing whatever left for boots or clothes or pleasure or for any of the other things that Members of this House find so necessary to add to the enjoyment and pleasure of life. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) recently spoke about a pamphlet published some years ago, "The Miner's Next Step." The miner's next step to-day is 2s. a day increase, no complicated economic philosophy but just a little more, and even with that he still would be a poor man.
I have been to the Rhondda Valley and I have seen the desolation there. I was told by friends of mine that years ago that Valley was one of the most glorious in Wales, with trees covering the slopes from the stream, and they even told me that the squirrel then could pass from the head of the Valley down to the sea without touching the ground. There are no trees there to-day; they have gone into the mines. There is no joy there to-day. There is grim, hard necessity all the time. What is there about this industry that seems to corrode everything it touches? It wipes out the beauty of nature and leaves desolation behind; it brings heartbreak and anxiety and dearth and want into the miners' homes. It even seems to affect the mine owners and to make them the most difficult set of employers in the whole range of British industry. It even affects Prime Ministers, and makes them send letters to America which surely on reflection they regret.
Here is the problem still waiting for solution. After 150 years of investigation, after Royal Commissions, decent miners still seek a reasonable standard of life, not a luxurious standard. I was very much impressed by a wireless broadcast


statement that came from an observer of the end of the stay-in strike in South Wales. He described the men, who were fighting desperately to preserve their trade union coming up to the surface after a week underground, and instead, as one might have expected, of their dropping into boasting and exultation after they had won their point, they stood in a ring and sang their Welsh hymn "Cwm Rhondda." Hon. Members will know the words:
Guide me oh Thou great Jehovah,
Pilgrim through a barren land.
It is a very barren land for the miner—
I am weak, but Thou art mighty
Guard me with Thy powerful hand.
Bread of Heaven, Bread of Heaven,
Feed me till I want no more.
These men who suffer from the lack of the bread of earth take their victory in that spirit. They deserve better treatment at the hands of this House and of the nation.
It may be urged that there is not the money in this industry to provide for the miner the standard of life that he deserves. No one on this bench can accept that for a moment. If we did, it would mean that every employer who had mismanaged his industry would be entitled to sweat his workpeople. When one says that the money is not in the industry it all depends on what is meant by the term "industry" and where the frontiers of that industry are put. If the frontier is put immediately round the pit, there may be some strength in the contention, but if the frontier is put where we claim it ought to be put, where the commodity is sold to the consumer, there is money enough and to spare to lift the standard of life of the working collier to a much higher figure. I am a railway man. I hear from railway officers that consignments of coal change hands three times between Nottingham and London. People outside the House, the ordinary consumers of coal, are pointing out that they are paying 50s. a ton for coal, whereas the pithead price is, shall I say, £1 [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let us err on the side of generosity. The carriage costs 10s. The man-in-the-street points out that that amounts to 30s. for all the essential services of finding the coal and bringing it to him. Out of the additional pound cannot the 2s. be found to give the miners exactly what they ask? No

wonder that miners use the phrase that miners' wages ought to follow the ton of coal, not to the pithead, but to the ultimate consumer.
The simple terms of my Motion entitle me to wonder how any Member of the House can vote against it. It is simply a, registration of opinion that a miner is entitled to an increase in wages on a national basis. I have endeavoured to discover any scheme of reasoning which would justify hon. Members going into the Lobby against the Motion. It seems to me that there is only one that could justify it, and that is a political philosophy which appears to me to be completely wrong. It may be held in some quarters that there are two classes of mankind—those born to comfort and luxury, and those, who are larger numerically, born to servitude, poverty and hardship. On that philosophy I can understand a logical case in favour of rejecting this Motion, but, apart from that, I can see none. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper, and I cannot help wondering whether it would have been placed on the Order Paper as a Motion if the hon. Gentleman who put it down had had the good fortune, as I had, of securing a place in the Ballot. Would hon. Gentlemen on the other side, if they had been fortunate enough to secure the right by the Ballot to place a Motion on the Order Paper, have put down this expression of sympathy with the miners? I am rather puzzled about some of the terms of the Amendment. It seems to me very belated, for the Coal Mines Act has been on the Statute Book for four or five years, and selling agencies are covered by it, yet there has been no offer of selling agencies until now. We on this side know that the mineowners have never voluntarily given any increase of wages or better conditions to the mineworkers.
I feel uncomfortable about the mining situation. I think that we all ought to feel uncomfortable about it, and to feel that there ought to be enough wisdom in this House so to arrange and reorganise the industry that these essential servants of the community—for all the industry of the country rests on the bent back of the miner—may have provided for them a, standard of life appropriate to the unpleasantness and hardness of their calling. There are 750,000 miners outside this House who are looking to us for


justice. One miner once said to me, "It would be a good thing for Britain if every Member of Parliament were obliged Lo live under miners' conditions for two months; they would know exactly what life means for these people." I am very grateful that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for Mines is here. In the Parliament of 1929 he often addressed the House from, I think, pretty well the place from which I am speaking, or, perhaps, a little further behind. I always disagreed with his speeches, but I always thoroughly enjoyed them. They were scintillating, almost jocular. Although I enjoyed them, I do not think I enjoyed them quite as much as the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself did, but he provided an atmosphere of pleasantness in our debates.
I want to appeal to him to-day to make a speech that will bring pleasure to us. He has, no doubt, thought out the lines he is going to take in this Debate. It may be that he has some notes. I beg him to keep those notes in his pocket and to make a speech saying that the Government accept the Motion and recommend its acceptance by the whole House. It is not an unreasonable thing to ask that the Government should accept this simple expression of opinion that the miners' wages should be increased. If the Minister will do that there will go out, as a result of this Debate, to all the mine fields of the country a message bringing hope, expectancy and fortitude to these people. They are waiting for something that will say to them that their future is going to be—I was about to say brighter, but that is the wrong word to use in this connection—going to be less gloomy than their past has been. In this community of ours we ought to be able to provide that the workers in this essential industry are given a standard of life that is reasonable and proper in the circumstances. Half the miners' waking hours are spent in the pit. The community ought to guarantee that his leisure hours are hours that bring enjoyment and satisfaction to him. Let the House pass this Motion and the joy in the mine fields will be great.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. RITSON: I beg to second the Motion.
Speaking for the miners, I am sure they will be very thankful for the speech of

my hon. Friend in moving this Motion. What I lack in eloquence I hope that I shall make up in experience. It is a far cry from the days of Edward III to the present day, but it is interesting to recall how in those days they complained about coal coming from the north of England to London because of the sulphurous fumes that arose from it. I fully appreciate the difficulties of the man-in-the-street with regard to the question of miners' wages and conditions. One of the difficulties with which I meet is that people outside the industry wonder what this question of wages all means. Taking my own district as an example, from the coal face to the bank we arrange for no fewer than 36 grades of workers of all ages, wages and conditions. At the bank we have 29 grades, and the mechanics and engineering classes have seven. One can, therefore, appreciate the difficulties of being asked to explain what the question of wages between miners and mine-owners means. I think that the best reply we can give to the owners' reply is the owners' reply itself. My eloquent Friend, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), handed me the other day a newspaper which contained the owners' reply. It was the "Western Mail" of 6th December. I do not know whether it is a Socialist paper or not: I am not wondering about the politics, but I am about this statement.
The writer says that the miners have £115 10s. average wage a year, and that works out, the statement says, at £2 5s. per week. That is the best answer that can be given on behalf of those men who are throwing their very lives into this work. The writer puts the gilt on the gingerbread when he claims that the pieceworkers are getting £3 2s. 6d. That is the reflection on the other fellow who can make his average only £2 5s. Who are the pieceworkers, and how many of them are there? With mechanisation going on in the mines, we find that in the older collieries, where it is impossible to introduce machining methods, the datal wage man is more and more coming in.
The writer goes on to say: "Just look at the comparisons in real wages." Any man who can speak of £2 55. as a "real wage" has my sympathy, and the man who gets it has my prayers. Under the heading of "A comparison of real wages" the writer makes some amazing


statements. He goes back to conditions in 1914, taking 100 as the standard for 1914. In that year they were receiving on an average 6s. 5½d. a shift, he says, and in 1934 9s. 1¾d. He says the purchasing power of that 6s. 5½d. was 100, and the purchasing power of 9s. 1¾d. with the cost of living at 141 is 100.4. What a marvellous advance we have gained in 20 years, an advance of.4 per cent. We have struggled, we have struck, we have fought, we have reasoned, we have begged, and now we come before this big assembly to ask whether it is fair that after 20 years we have an advance of only.4. But that is not the worst. The writer of this article, whoever he is, states that in 1914 we produced 14.54 cwt. per man shift. Now, after 20 years, we are producing 22.94 cwt. For the difference between 14 cwt. and 22 cwt. we are receiving the magnificent addition of.4 to real wages.

Mr. WRAGG: Those figures do not apply to the country generally, I think.

Mr. RITSON: The average for the whole country is 23 cwt., or near it. I am told that the hon. Member who interrupted me comes from Derbyshire. In Derbyshire they are the aristrocrats of the minefields. Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire are a good deal better off than we are, because of their markets and their opportunities. There, I am informed, the figure is 27 cwt. The right hon. Gentleman who is now the Secretary of State for the Colonies used to advise us after the War to produce more. We have produced more and we get less. We have thrown all our energy into our work and we get less, both in sympathy and in kind. I can give a striking example. In the County of Durham, where 102,000 miners are employed, there are wages at 6s. 6½d. per shift. The average number of days worked per week last year was 4.79. That gives an average weekly wage of 31s. 3d., which works out at 4s. 5½d. a day, before the colliery deductions are made. In the case of a man and wife and three children, if the two parents have each three meals a day at a cost of 6d. a meal—an expenditure of 3s.—and the three children have each three meals at 2d. a meal—an expenditure of 1s. 6d.—the total expenditure on food per day is 4s. 6d., whereas the gross wage is only 4s. 5½d.
I know that what I am stating about the 6s. 6½d. a day is correct, because it happens that my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) and I fixed up that wage, under duress, and it remains, and we cannot get it moved, and we are now asking the House to help us to get wages raised to the level of common decency. We do not know what exactly is meant by the Amendment to this Motion which has been placed on the Order Paper. Does it mean that we have to go back to the districts to settle these matters? I cannot discuss the Amendment until it has been moved, but I should like an answer on that point from the Minister when he replies. I would say beforehand that we do not want to be driven back into the districts, because in Durham we are always told that owing to the heavy burden of the poor rates it is utterly impossible for the owners to pay the wages which we ask.
I would recall to the House what happened when we as a party brought in a Bill to set up selling agencies such as the Government are now proposing to put into operation. It met with very much opposition from the other side of the House, in which the Liberals joined. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), whose imagination is prolific, whose wrists are more eloquent than his tongue, described what would happen to the poor in London if the Miners' Federation and the mine-owners got together on the question of selling agencies. He said, "Those two parties will meet together, they will arrange prices that will suit them both, providing for the profit of the one side and the easement of the other, until, when we come down in the house in the morning, the cold frost will be upon the window panes." He himself has gone away to escape the frost at the present time, but he has left us in a frost. That was what the right hon. Gentleman argued, and nobody cheered him harder than the hon. and gallant Member the present Secretary for Nines. I am looking for a quotation. Talk about maiden speeches. When you have been away from this House for four years you feel like a maiden when you return. An hon. Friend of mine asked the former Secretary of Mines, who is now the Minister


of Labour, about evasions. We are not responsible for evasions. The evasions are as follows—this is from the former Secretary for Mines:

"(a) The formation of subsidiary companies to which coal is sold at the statutory minimum price; the subsidiary companies in turn selling it at less than the minimum price, their losses being borne by the parent company.
(b) Selling coal at prices below the minimum price ruling.
(c) Selling more than one kind of coal at a time to one consumer, one kind at the minimum price and the other at a discount.
(d) Selling a parcel of coal to a customer the greater part at the minimum price and the balance invoiced at a nominal price of a few pence per ton.
(e) The payment of exorbitant remuneration to selling agents, whose functions are purely nominal, to sell at prices below the minimum, making good their losses from their remuneration.
(f) The purchase of stores from customers at inflated prices.
(g) Coke is outside Part I of the 1930 Act. Selling of coal and coke together, the former at a minimum price, the latter at a substantial discount of the current market rate."

If there are to be selling agencies, we hope the Government will see that we are protected from the owners, who ought to be protected from themselves. We are asked sometimes where the extra money which we seek for the miners is to be found. I see by this morning's paper that another £2,000,000 is going to the owners of tramp steamers, £2,000,000 having already been expended in that way. I suggest that there is a possibility of obtaining the extra money for the miners, without any hardship to anybody, from the subsidiary trades which we have to supply with coal. We as miners feel that it is hard that we have to generate all the power used for driving ships, or engines, or for producing electricity, and that those who handle that power after we have created it get 3s. or 4s. a day more than we do.
I am a member of the Sunderland Town Council, which generates its own supply of electricity. That electricity service, even in a small, circumscribed town like Sunderland, made so much money that we were able to give great advantages to consumers. That electricity supply service has been making thousands a year, although there is not a, man employed who receives less than £3 5s. a week—unless it be the labourers, who get

£2 17s. 6d., with a week's holiday a year. Time-and-a-half is paid for overtime and double pay for Sunday work. As I have said, the men who produce the coal used for the generation of that electricity get 3s. or 4s. a day less than the electricity service employés. I am speaking for myself and I do not know what the Miners' Federation have to say, but I do not care where I get the money as long as I get it. I make no bones about that. Let it be remembered that the Government put up food prices, particularly the price of bacon. They have taken from an ordinary working family in Durham, by the increase in the price of bacon, no less than 1s. 6d. a week. If the Government have increased the cost of foodstuffs in that way they ought to consider the price of gas and electricity and domestic coal. I have met coalowners more than once, and their argument has always been that they cannot afford to pay higher wages. One of them said to me once: "If you would only get those railwaymen's wages down we could help." I replied: "But are you not a railway director, colonel?" He admitted that he was. "Are you not a steelowner?" The answer was "Yes." "Are you not a shipowner" "Yes." I said: "You are on the whole of the industrial chessboard. What you lose on one you pick up on the other."
We are not anxious to strike. Let me tell the Secretary for Mines that I have been through more strikes than I hope he will ever go through. It has been a test once or twice. I have been through them for years, and I have always come out of them in debt. The sad fact has been that you have to make up that debt with somebody else at your side. We are not anxious for a fight, and we have put it off as long as possible, but I give you a guarantee that the courage of the men will be unequalled once they start. Let me give you an idea of the difficulties. I do not want to put forward any sob-stuff. We had an after-dinner speech from the Colonial Secretary the other night. After-dinner speeches should never be delivered from that Box. If he had made that speech at six o'clock in the morning instead of ten o'clock at night he would not have known where he was. [Interruption.] I did not suggest that he had had more liquids than solids; I meant to say that it would have been a more sensible speech.
He warned us that the agricultural labourer would have his turn. If there is any man in this House who would have a regard for the agricultural labourer it would be your humble servant. My father was one, and agricultural labourers have trickled from the hills of Wales and of Scotland into the mines of Durham. They came also from Kent and Norfolk into Northumberland, as the Minister without Portfolio knows. They came from Cornwall. There was a bitterness for years. They came with muscles like iron and no knowledge of trade unionism, until they were exploited by the owners and we civilised them during the process. They are there, and we welcome them. We have mixed them with the Northern courage and now they stand as respectable citizens. I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman who chided us, that we have never begrudged the farm labourer that to which he is entitled, and the best work that the Colonial Secretary could do, in spite of his reduction in status, is to convert the people on that side to the farm labourer, and not us.
In the last election I had to go round visiting my constituents, as we have all done. I went to houses in the Division of the Lord President of the Council. Part of my Division makes a little island or an oasis in his. He found the oasis and I found the victory. I went there and asked for a certain voter who was on the register. I asked where his house was, and I was told "In the pigeon croft." Honestly I did not believe it, but I found three people with votes living in the pigeon croft where they had been driven by the means test. To save their families they were living there, and they had their vote from the pigeon croft. Some of the men had medals of service upon their chests. I could find there men with Mons medals, starving in the pigeon crofts of Durham because of the application of your means test and the horror of the conditions of their industry.
There is something which hurts me far more, and that is that we have to send our daughters by thousands from home. I attended the funeral of the little girl who went back to save the life of a cook. That little heroine was driven from her home in my division because of the conditions

that obtained. We are appealing, we are begging the Government. The owners can and will act, if they are brought to book as they ought to be. If they are not, the responsibility is yours. We have always been put down as keen for striking. We have never been keen for striking. We have been keen for a standard of life commensurate with common decency, and we only ask that the conditions of the industry shall give that standard. There are nearly a million men and their dependants who will fight as they have never fought before for a recognition to which they are fully entitled. Advantage has been taken of their price lists, and they are brokenhearted by the treatment that they are receiving. They have asked you politically and they have asked you industrially. They ask you now in the humanest sense that you should give them and their wives and families the conditions of life to which they are entitled by the service that they have given to the State.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. PEAKE: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
sympathises with the desire of the miners to achieve a higher standard of life, it welcomes the declaration of the Government that central sales organisations are to be established by 1st July next, and urges the representatives of employers and employed to enter forthwith into discussions to ascertain what increase In wage-rates is immediately possible, having regard to the present and potential capacity of the industry.
Before I discuss the terms of the Amendment it will be the general desire that I should congratulate the two hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Motion upon their charming speeches. I welcome back to the House two personal friends, and I should like to thank them for the non-party spirit in which they have put their case. The public have for some time been deeply concerned about the condition of the coal miners and the way in which many of them have to earn their livings. That concern is due I think to the fact that before the War the coal miner was the best paid of our industrial workers, and to-day he is certainly not the best paid.


He is one of the worst paid. I remember just about 20 years ago, when the deep coal mines were being sunk in the South Yorkshire coalfield, how the coming of the coal mines drew labour from the farms and railways, and generally raised the standard of wages in the district.
Average figures, as the last speaker said, are not a true guide to the conditions under which the miners live. The average earnings per shift at the present time, as hon. Members opposite know, are 9s. 3d. for the whole country, but that average conceals very wide discrepancies. In that average figure are included workers at the coal face whose average wage, in the county of Yorkshire from which I come, is 13s. At the other end of the scale are the surface workers in Scotland, who only average 6s. 2d. The discrepancies which are concealed by the presentation of the average figures have been greatly accentuated in the last two years by the introduction of machine mining. Under machine mining you displace perhaps 80 coal hewers, who may be getting 11s., 12s. or 13s. per shift, and in place of them you put 20 men, who probably earn 17s. or 18s. a shift, and 20 others who simply go on to day wages. The proportion of men on day wages has been increased by the introduction of machine mining.
A second consideration that particularly applies to the coalfields from which I come is that we have to work, as a maximum at the present time, a five-day week. Under the agreements in the midland coalfields, Saturday's working is a shorter day than the remainder, with the result that it is quite impossible to get through the machine mining operations in the course of a short day. That means that the maximum number of days' work which a man can get is five, and that means that in slack times when trade falls off, the man gets only four days' work per week.
The result of those two factors combined is, first of all, that the larger proportion of men on the minimum wages, combined with a shorter working week than the men used to get in the days before the War, produces a great deal of discontent and hardship. It is important for the House to realise that even if the industry becomes more prosperous and the ascertained percentages rise above the minimum, these low-paid men

will be the very last to benefit because, under the arrangements we have for granting what we call subsistence allowances, the percentage has to rise at least nine points above the minimum before the day wage men get any increase. The result of these factors is a large proportion of adult workmen of 21 years of age and over, who are either married or would like to get married, and who are living on wages which very often are only a little better than the dole. That is the case which, I think, the miners have to put before the country at the present time, and that is the cause of the sympathy which the public feel with the case which the miners have put.
The problem of the industry is to secure more money at the pit head. Whenever a crisis occurs in the mining industry, all sorts of wild-cat schemes are put forward either for obtaining economies in the cost of production or for saving money in the cost of distribution. I do not believe that any spectacular savings are to be made at the present time in the cost of producing coal. Small savings we always can and do make, but a lot of nonsense is talked about concentrating production on the most economic units. Every coal mine has already concentrated to the utmost upon the most economic districts in the pits. That by itself has resulted in a considerable fall in the cost of production.
When we come to the cost of distributing coal, it is very easy to mislead the public by comparing the price of coal at the pit head with the price which the householder pays for coal when it is delivered into his cellar. It is easy to mislead the public, because the public never remember that 80 per cent. of the coal sold in this country is not bought by household consumers at all. It goes into industry, and it is not quite fair to suggest that because there is a wide gap, and there may be a certain amount of waste in the distribution of household coal, that the same thing applies to the 89 per cent. which goes to industry. Eighty per cent. of the coal of the country goes direct from the collieries to the big industrial consumers, and unless we are going to have a fall in railway rates, I see very little prospect of securing any substantial sum from economy in distributing that industrial coal. When it comes to the other 20 per cent., the coal used for household purposes, there is a wide gap between the price at the pit and the


price paid by the consumer. In London you probably pay 46s. a ton for a decent quality house coal. Of that, 15s. goes to the coal merchant, 1s. goes to the hire of the railway wagon, 12s. goes to the railway company for drawing the coal from the coalfields to London, and it leaves about 18s. for the colliery.
Unless we are to have a reduction in rail freights there is going to be no saving on that 12s. a ton from the Midland coalfields down to London. Is there any possible saving in the 15s. between the price at which the coal merchant buys and the price at which the coal merchant sells? It has always seemed to me to be a very wide gap, but we do have one great safeguard, and that is that far and away the largest coal merchants in the country, dealing in household coal, are the Co-operative Societies. The Co-operative Societies are good friends to the collieries, and I am going to make no attack upon them at all. We look to the Co-operative Societies to keep a check upon the profits made by the coal merchants. The Co-operative Societies to-day sell annually about 6,000,000 tons of household coal, and I should very much like the titular head of the Co-operative movement, if he were here, to tell us whether he thinks there is any substantial saving to be made on the coal merchants' margin. I heard him speak at a public luncheon not many months ago, and he suggested as a possible maximum figure a saving, I think, of about 1s., and a saving of that sort, although it is a substantial sum on house coal, if you spread it over the whole of the coal sold in the country would amount only to about 2d. a ton. If any savings can be made, we at the collieries shall be grateful for having them passed on to us.
We are driven relentlessly to this conclusion, that we must get higher prices at the pithead. I do not think it is practical politics to put anything on to the price of house coal at the present time. It is the most valuable trade which the collieries have. It pays us the best price, but it is a declining market because householders are going over more and more to other forms of heat. It follows, therefore, that the increased prices have to come from the big industrial consumers. That may be an unpopular thing to say, but I think it is

necessary and justified. I should not have advocated this policy 18 months or two years ago, but at the present time we have seen the price of industrial coal falling lower and lower, and industry to-day is getting its coal cheaper than it got it at the worst time of the slump in 1930 or 1931. Moreover, the big coal-using industries are very much more prosperous now than they were two or three years ago—iron and steel, gas and the big electricity undertakings for instance. We have to get up the price of fuel used for industrial purposes. How is that to be done?
Mr. William Graham's Act of 1930, which provided for fixed minimum prices at the pithead, was quite unworkable. The coalowners have been blamed because the fixed minimum prices did not work. It was an unworkable scheme from the start. I do not want to blow my own trumpet, but I pointed that out in the Committee stage of the Bill and it has proved a most disastrous Act. I am not, speaking of the Coal Mines Act as a whole but of the price-fixing sections of the 1930 Act. We are now going to follow out what is a more hopeful line, the establishment of central selling agencies, and any profits made by these agencies are going to be credited to the wages ascertainments. Any bigger prices realised for coal sold through the central selling schemes will be for the benefit of the wages ascertainments. It is going to take some little time to get this central selling into operation, and it will experience, like all great experiments, difficulties at the outset. Do not expect too much from central selling in the early stages.
Now I think we have to face up to the problem of the exporting districts. It is all very well to say that we are going to put up the price of coal sold to industry in this country, but how far it is possible to increase the coal sold for export is rather a different matter.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: You say the increased selling price is definitely to go to the miners' wages in the ascertainments. But in the ascertainments at the present time if you increase it by 1s. 6d. a ton in Yorkshire we shall not get 2d. out of it. Will the hon. Gentleman answer that question?

Mr. PEAKE: That is not quite the fact. There is a big deficiency on the


Yorkshire ascertainments, but it is perfectly open, under the wages agreement, for either side to give a month's notice to terminate the agreement, in which case that deficiency would automatically be wiped out, and the ascertainment percentage for the early months of next year will in all probability rise above the minimum of 32 per cent. Let me go back to the problem of the exporting districts. I believe that it may be possible to get small increases in price in the exporting districts. I believe that the prices taken are in part due to competition between the producers for the export trade. It will, however, be much more difficult to get a substantial rise in price for export coal as compared with coal sold for the home market. Moreover, and this is important, the districts in which the wages are the lowest to-day are the districts which do the largest proportion of export trade. I do not rule out the possibility of putting a levy on coal sold in this country for the benefit of passing it over to those collieries who sell coal abroad. I do not rule that out as a subject for negotiation and discussion. But I think if we who sell most of our coal in the home market are going in effect to subsidise collieries which sell a great deal of their coal in the export markets we must have certain safeguards.
From South Wales we ought to have a safeguard that the ascertainment system both in the spirit and in the letter is being honoured by the South Wales coal owners. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. A. Jenkins) in a maiden speech the other day voiced suspicions which are generally felt about the ascertainment system in South Wales, and speaking as a Midland coal owner I should not be prepared to subsidise the South Wales export trade unless I was assured that the men were getting a square deal. So far as the North-East coast—Durham and Northumberland—is concerned, these districts have increased their share of the available trade during the last five years by pursuing a price-cutting policy. I do not rule out the possibility of subsidising their exports, but if we do that they must give some guarantee that they are not going to dump their coal into the inland market.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member assure me that under the central selling agencies the elimination of overlapping

in the export market will be a good thing, in particular in bringing in an amount of revenue for the industry?

Mr. PEAKE: I have no doubt that the setting up of central sales organisations will reduce the number of fitters factors and merchants in the trade to some extent. I turn to the reasons which have prompted me and my hon. friends in putting the Amendment on the Order Paper. The Motion as it stands concedes in full the claims of the Miners' Federation. I think that is a correct interpretation of the Motion on the Order Paper. Is it wise for this House, when difficult and delicate negotiations are in progress outside, negotiations of the greatest importance to the industrial welfare of the country for the next four years, to plunge in and pass a resolution casting all its weight on one side of the negotiations? Is it wise for the House to do that? There is a second reason which prompts me not to support the Motion which has been put down. That is this. If this House is going to pass definite resolutions in favour of particular claims by particular bodies of industrial workers surely it becomes a logical conclusion that it is up to this House to find the money wherewith those claims can be met. In the present temper of the House and the country I do not think there is any probability of a subsidy from public funds being granted to the coal industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I certainly hope myself it will not be given.
Those are the reasons why we have placed the Amendment on the Order Paper. It expresses the sympathy which the public feel, and which I think every Member of this House feels, with the claims of the miners for some improvement in their standard; it welcomes the declaration of the Government that central selling organisations are going to be set up with a view to enhancing the proceeds of the industry; and, finally, it urges the representatives of employers and employed to enter forthwith into discussions—[An Holy. MEMBER: "Nationally?"]—nationally, to ascertain what increase in wage rates is immediately possible, having regard to the present and potential capacity of the industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not in the Amendment."] I say advisedly "national discussions." The only reason why the word "national" is not in the Amendment is


because it is obviously necessary to have both national and district discussions before this problem can be settled. In districts where there are agreements which have one or two years to run, it would obviously be necessary for those agreements to be modified.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: Would the hon. Member accept the words "district and national discussions"?

Mr. PEAKE: As an Amendment to my Amendment?

Sir F. ACLAND: Yes.

Mr. PEAKE: I certainly would. The point that I am making is that here we have a most absurd position. On behalf of the men there is one negotiating body; on behalf of the owners there are 13 area wages boards; and they can only meet through the intervention of the Minister for Mines. I say deliberately that that is an undignified position for a great industry. We in Yorkshire are ready and willing to negotiate an increase in wages, at any rate for the low-paid men, straight away, but we are handicapped in entering into a negotiation of that sort because, unless there are national negotiations, it is almost impossible for us to increase our wages costs without injuring our competitive power as against other districts, and putting our own men to some extent out of work. It seems to me to be absurd that we should have co-ordinated control of coal output, that we should have co-ordinated control of central selling, and that we should have unco-ordinated wages. Arbitration would be better than a stoppage, but I believe that conciliation would be better than either, and, therefore, I want to urge upon my fellow-coalowners outside this House who do not take the same view as I do that we should forget the days of 1921 and 1926, that we should recognise that they have some good men in the Miners' Federation to-day, men who can make a great contribution to the solution of these difficult problems, and that we should get together as soon as possible and hammer out a solution, instead of coming in this undignified way to the Minister for Mines before a meeting can be arranged.
I and my hon. Friends have framed this Amendment in a non-party spirit, and I have tried to move it in a non-party

spirit. Would it be too much to ask my hon. Friends opposite to consider whether it is not possible for them, in the interests of peace in the coal industry, to accept the Amendment which we have put down? If they could see their way to do that, we should be setting an example to those outside which those outside would be well advised to follow.

5.21 p.m.

Sir GEOFFREY ELLIS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I desire to associate myself particularly with what my hon. Friend opposite said as to the necessity for considering the question of negotiation on a national as well as a local basis. One question that we all have to face, owners as well as men, is: What is the frontier through which a line can be drawn as regards wage ascertainments, and what is the attitude that industry as a whole is going to take when it is asked to pay more for its coal? It is suggested that the frontier might stretch as far as the consumer, and that those who are now only getting the benefit of wages ascertainments as far as the pithead ought to be allowed to share in all the other profits. In that regard I would like to point out to my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches that it is necessary to consider all the people who are engaged in those secondary industries, and I would ask them to remember that there is nothing like the profit in those industries that they suggest. In fact, it is very difficult to-day to sell at any price many of the by-products of coal. Apart from that, our immediate problem—and one has to go by stages in all these matters—is the question of being able to obtain a higher price for our coal.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we can leave on one side the eternal question of efficiency, because most people who know anything about coal know that our coalfields are as efficient as, nay, a good deal more efficient than, most other coalfields throughout the world. The point really is, how can we persuade 80 per cent. of the users of coal to accept the arguments which have been brought forward to-day? I am entirely at one with the sentiments expressed by the mover and seconder of the Motion, but it is not enough to express them; they have to be translated into some


practical action, and it is the practical end that I hope we are all out to attain.
We have to face the inescapable fact that coal is no longer a monopoly. We have to recognise that in producing coal we are simply producing a possible motive force that is in competition with other sources of energy, and, therefore, we have to bear in mind that anything which we do in regard to prices must always be conditioned by the possibility of competition with these other sources of energy. One of them is oil, which undoubtedly is being used in the modern Diesel engine in such a way as to make it a very strong competitor with power produced from coal alone. If we increase the costs of those who use our coal, we shall have to be careful that that increase in costs does not reach a limit which makes it possible for these other competitors to come in, and so lessen the quantity of coal that we are able to sell.
The next competitor that we have to consider is electricity, and perhaps, as one who is interested both in the production of coal and in the use of coal for the production of electricity, I can see this matter a little more in perspective than those who are only engaged on one side or the other. It is true that power stations are very big users of coal, and I do not think they ought to forget that in the last 10 years the efficiency of modern boilers and modern grates has been such that they have been able to decrease very largely the amount of coal that they use, and still get a much greater percentage of power. To that extent the increase in efficiency has worked against us as coal producers, but to that extent they ought to remember that the amount of coal that they use no longer bears the same relation to their total costs that it used to bear, and that, therefore, they should be more in a position to consider some amount of higher charge.
Nevertheless, it is fair to point out that anything which increases their expenditure on coal they have to consider very carefully, because they have a very heavy dead weight of debt to bear in the form of all the charges that they have had to pay and are still paying year by year in order to get the same phase and frequency throughout the whole

country; and the very large debt contracted by the Central Electricity Board is also in the end thrown back on the producers of electricity, and finally on the consumers. Consumers can be charged increased prices up to a certain point, and they will pay them, but there comes a time when they say it seems to them that the increase is too great, and, therefore, they will exercise their brains to the utmost in trying to find some alternative. It is, I believe, possible that a good many consumers of electricity would find alternatives, and certain stations might be worked by Diesel engines, which in the end would be worse for us, because they would not use any coal at all. We have to consider these points very carefully.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that electricity can be generated by Diesel-driven plant at competitive prices?

Sir G. ELLIS: If you put electric power stations into the position, by charging too much for their coal—

Mr. BEVAN: What is the margin?

Sir G. ELLIS: I am not going into the question in detail; I am simply making the point that you cannot go beyond a certain stage. Electrical production plants driven by oil are now being produced for single users in considerable numbers, and a great deal of work has been done on that subject. If the price of coal goes beyond a certain point, individual users will take up that method of production, and to that extent they will cease to take current from the power stations, which in the long run, will find their costs up. Surely that is a point which hon. Members will appreciate.
There is another aspect that should be borne in mind. The railway companies ought not to grumble at being asked to pay a little more for their coal. They get a great deal out of the carriage of coal; indeed, the rates we are paying to-day are some 70 per cent. more than they were before the War. Moreover, the railway companies are also sharing the advantages that come from more efficient coal consumption in their engines, and to that extent they gain, while we lose, through a lower consumption of coal. A further point, which I think hon. Members


above the Gangway do not altogether appreciate, is that, in all these industries that we have been considering, labour represents a very large proportion of the final costs of the industry. In fact, to-day it is a very large proportion of the final cost in most industries. All these other industries are sheltered. Coal is the only one that is not sheltered. In ascertainments in the future all those who are working under sheltered conditions should be asked to remember, when they apply for an increase of wages, often on the basis of the cost of living, which has nothing to do with the general aspect of the case, that they are benefiting by the fact that the industries that employ them are using coal at a rate which does not allow the miner a decent, economic standard of life.
So far as the export of coal is concerned, we have to face the simple fact that we cannot dictate the price. If arrangements are made for central selling agencies, I do not think it is impossible for the principle to be accepted that if you put the whole industry, so to speak, under one control, you must, if you are to get fairness, have some contribution from the home market. It would be obviously unfair to raise the wages of men engaged in the home market and leave the export market out. I do not see that there would be any great difficulty in getting that done. I hope for something from the selling agencies not only in the direction of getting perhaps a little better market than we get now, but they may possibly lead to a saving in the transport of coal, in the handling of coal and in the placing of coal, because undoubtedly in time we must look forward to having coal sold for consumption in the districts in which it is produced as far as possible before any other coal comes in. In that way we may be able to save a good deal in transport, because now we get a lot of journeys across the country, all of which have to be paid for.
I have never seen a better will on both sides to consider this question. A real obligation rests not only on the two sides of this industry but on industry generally to appreciate that, if we are going, in the future, on the principle of fairness to everyone concerned, industry as a whole has to face all these inequalities and try to put them straight. Hon.

Members above the Gangway are asking for what I may term a flat rate increase. Most of them do not mean that, do not want it and do not expect to get it. I will tell them why. The first thing that moves in every man's mind when he is working with his fellows is to redress patent inequalities within the limits of their own work. If you look throughout the industry you will find that a considerable class of men are well paid and take home good money. The boys and learners on the whole are not worse off than the boys and learners in other industries. The surface men are not badly off compared with work outside the pits. On the whole it is perfectly apparent where the shoe pinches. We know the particular class of people who are badly paid and who ought to be paid better. If you want the sympathy of the country, if you want to work logically to a logical end, you have to see that these people are the first to benefit and, if any money can be obtained, it has to go there first and, when we have put them on a fair level, we can talk about a general advance all round.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. WATSON: I am certain that I express the view of my colleagues when I say that we appreciate very much the tone and spirit of the Mover of the Amendment. It is an unfortunate thing that that is not the tone and spirit that is shown when the representatives of the mine workers' Federation are permitted to enter into negotiations with the mine owners' Association. If the same spirit prevailed in those negotiations there would be some hope of progress being made. The last speaker is under a misapprehension as to what the Miners' Federation is demanding. They are demanding a flat rate increase of 2s. per day on miners' wages and they are asking for a national conference and a national agreement. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said he did not, oppose a national agreement. If he were in a position to express the views of the whole of the coalowners, there would be no crisis and there would be no difficulty, and we should be able to settle our differences in a very short time. Unfortunately that is not the attitude that is adopted by those who speak on behalf of the mineowners. They have evidently made up their mind that there is to be no national agreement, and that


this claim must be dealt with by each of the 13 districts. The Miners' Federation have made it clear that the increase must be a flat rate increase and we are not prepared to admit that some of our men are well paid and that only a comparatively few, as stated by the last speaker, require to be dealt with.

Sir G. ELLIS: I did not say so.

Mr. WATSON: By the time he had separated all the different categories it seemed as if only a few surface workers required to be levelled up a little bit. That is not the claim that is made by the Miners' Federation. We maintain that miners' wages generally are too low and that steps must be taken at once to improve them. We cannot possibly wait until the schemes proposed by the Government come into operation. The hon. Member opposite suggested that we should be content to go on for a little time until the selling agencies are allowed to work. We are not against selling agencies being set up, but we shall require a great deal more evidence than we have had submitted yet that they are going to be of very material assistance in improving wages. The hon. Member himself did not hold out very much hope of a very substantial increase from selling agencies. He said that we had almost reached the limit upon which we can increase the price of coal to the domestic consumer—that there was a possibility of something being got from the big industrial undertakings, and that we might get something in the shape of an increase in income from our export trade but practically nothing from domestic consumers. We say that miners' wages require to be improved without our having to wait for this proposal or for the other which has been so extensively discussed during the past week—mining royalties. I do not know whether the Secretary for Mines expects that we are going to have something from that source which will enable us to secure higher wages. At any rate, the miners are satisfied that neither from the Government proposals with regard to selling agencies nor royalties are we going to get very much to enable the colliery owners to pay higher wages.
The owners tell us that the money is not in the industry and that we cannot expect to get more out of it than is in it.

Why is there not money in the industry? It is due to the cut-throat competition between district and district. It is because we have not yet been able to get rid of the senseless competition which has been going on during the whole time that we have had the coal trade in operation, coalowners competing against each other for markets and cutting prices and always coming back to the miner and telling him that the money is not in the industry, and that until money is in the industry they cannot afford to pay the wages that the men demand.
We were hoping that after the passing of the Coal Mines Act of 1930 we were going to have a serious attempt made by the British coalowners to get into the industry the money that would enable them to pay the miners a decent living wage, but despite the fact that that Measure has been on the Statute Book for a number of years, it has not been used for the purpose of trying to improve conditions in the mining industry. I believe that I am correct in saying that when that Measure was introduced in the House of Commons there was a provision in it for a central levy which would have given the hon. Member exactly what he has asked for this afternoon. It was proposed that in order to enable us to keep our position, and perhaps improve it, in the export markets, there should be a central levy. At the instigation of certain parties—I am not sure whether it was withdrawn or rejected—the proposal was not allowed to appear in the Act. Consequently, we are not in the position at this moment of having the power of a central levy whereby the export trade of this country could have been helped.
I very sincerely hope that at any rate a little of the spirit that has animated the hon. Gentleman opposite will animate the coalowners within the next few weeks. The time is running very short. The miners have been very patient, and I believe that the sympathy that is being expressed on the other side of the House and outside as far as the general public are concerned is very largely due to the fact that the miners have been exceedingly patient under the conditions to which they have had to submit during the past few years. It is not a matter of months but of years—practically during the whole time that the present agreements have been in operation—that the miners have suffered and worked


under conditions under which it is not right that they should be asked to work. I believe that it is the knowledge of that fact outside this House as well as inside that has evoked the sympathy of the public. As far as the miners are concerned, we want to retain that public sympathy. We will not willingly throw it away, because we know that a very great deal depends upon how the public feel with regard to the matter as to the success or non-success of the claim that we are making. We do not want to do anything that will alienate public sympathy, and consequently we are not rushing headlong into another strike.
It has been said from these benches already that the miners have had their share of the strikes that have taken place in the industrial world in Great Britain. We have had our share of the strikes. We have hardly ever been out of trouble with the employers, either sectionally or nationally. The miners do not want to enter into another struggle such as we had in 1926. But do not let the coalowners imagine that because the miners do not want another struggle of that description, such a struggle may not be forced upon us. We want to do nothing rash, but at the same time the miners have made up their minds that their financial position must be improved. We say that the coalowners, if they care, can improve the position of the miners of this country. The power is in their hands, and if they say that the power is not in their hands, then the power can be taken by the Government. The Government can take any power that is necessary in order to compel the colliery owners to deal with this matter in a proper spirit.
Public sympathy is being expressed very forcibly in many quarters, and in some of the newspapers which very heartily support the present Government we are beginning to see some very plain things. I hope that the Secretary for Mines will take note of some of the things that are being said by the newspapers, who evidently are only too well aware of public opinion with regard to the claim of the miners. I come from the East of Scotland, and in our area there circulates a very well conducted evening newspaper—"The Edinburgh Evening News," one of the best evening newspapers in Scotland, and one with a very

wide circulation. Here is what this newspaper said only yesterday:
What the coalowners require to be told is that there is going to be no stoppage in this country. The coalowners do not actually work the mines, and if need be the Government can take immediate powers to do so.
This is a newspaper which supports the National Government. It is saying that if the coalowners are not prepared to settle with the miners, the Government should take power to work the mines themselves. It goes on to say:
The coalowners should be taught to see that they are living in 1935 and that business must be conducted in the general interest and not to the peril of the whole country.
What that newspaper is saying the general public is saying outside. They say that they have had enough of the struggles between the mineowners and the miners, because when a struggle takes place between them—I mean when a strike or a lock-out actually takes place—it is just about as bitter a struggle as can be engaged in by any employer and workman in this country. The miners wish to see this question amicably settled, but it must be settled on the basis of an all-round advance in wages. That is the claim that is made. There must be an all-round advance in miners' wages, and the very first thing that they desire is that this dispute should be discussed nationally between representatives of the Mining Association and representatives of the Miners' Federation. I do not know their objection. I do not know why they are refusing to meet us on this question. Do they imagine for a moment that because certain district agreements exist there call be no national stoppage? Is that their idea? Do they believe that there can be no national stoppage so long as these district agreements exist? Perhaps hon. Gentlemen on the other side are hoping that by and by, perhaps in a few weeks' time, we shall have the Home Secretary coming to that Box once again and telling the miners that they have committed an illegal act by breaking their district agreements. I hope that they will not bank upon that. I trust that there will be a sincere effort on the part of the colliery owners to meet the representatives of the miners and to discuss this question on the lines suggested by the


hon. Gentleman who last spoke on this side of the House. If they can satisfy the leaders of the miners that some miners in this country are so well paid that they do not require any more, well and good, but I am afraid that they will have a very difficult task. At any rate, the claim that has been made admits of no dubiety. It is a claim for a flat rate increase in the wages of the miners, and that the agreement, whatever that agreement is, shall be an agreement on national lines.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. WRAGG: As representing a constituency which to a considerable extent is governed by the mining vote, and not having myself been fortunate enough to receive many of the miners' votes, I wish to say at once that although many of them were hostile to me I bear no hostility to them, and I hope that this matter can be settled without bringing any ill-feeling into it at all. It is a mistake that so many hon. Gentlemen opposite and representatives of the miners in different parts of the country bring so much feeling into this question. It is to be regretted that the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) should describe the coalowners as avaricious, malicious, and short-sighted. That may be good enough for the hustings of Seaham, but it is certainly not good enough for the House of Commons, and I hope to show, at any rate that the coal-owners are not avaricious in the slightest degree. They may have been shortsighted—[An HON. MEMBER,; "Philanthropists!"]—Yes, I could put up a strong case to show that they are in the category of philanthropists.
There is a great deal of misunderstanding with regard to this question, both among the general public and among hon. Members in this House. The coal trade is, unfortunately, a declining trade. It is not the fault of the coalowners that oil has taken the place of coal, and that science has advanced or that makers of steel do not use as much coal as they used to do ten or 20 years ago. You have to consider the situation as it is, and you have to look at it in this way. For the last eight years, since the stoppage in the coal trade of 1926, there has only been £5,000,000 profit on an estimated capital in the industry of £200,000,000. During those eight years

1,850,000,000 tons of coal have been produced, and the profits of the coalowners has been two-thirds of a penny per ton and during those years in which the coal-owners have had £5,000,000, the miners have had £850,000,000 in wages. Those are figures which cannot be denied, and that is the difficulty of the situation that you are up against. I took the trouble the other day to look into the figures of all the public companies that are engaged in the production of coal, and coal only, and I found that in the 73 public companies I analysed the average dividend during the last seven years has been 2.85 per cent., that 34 of them have paid no dividends at all for seven years, and that many of them are owing bank overdrafts, some even to the extent of £1,200,000. When you have this state of affairs in the trade, how are you to get the large amount of money—£18,000,000 a year—which is required immediately to meet the miners' demands 4 It can only be got by an increase in the price at the pit-head.
The allegations that the coalowners have been short-sighted is to a certain extent justified. In my own experience small coal is being sold to-day at as low a price as 5s. 7d. a ton at the pithead. The reason for that, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) said, is that there is so much cut-throat competition between the owners in the different districts and also between owners in the same district. That sort of thing often happens in a declining industry. When you have an industry which in 1913 produced 287,000,000 tons of coal and last year produced 220,000,000 tons, a decrease of something over 25 per cent., that sort of thing happens. When you have these declines in the demand for coal you are bound to have competition without the owners coming together. It is always difficult to come together when the price of an article is going down.
I suggest that the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission, Sir Ernest Gower's Commission, which is costing a lot of money, and which is trying to force amalgamations on unwilling coalowners, should be taken advantage of by the Government and be put to the work of trying to co-ordinate prices in the districts and also prices between districts, so that better prices can be realised at


the pithead. That Commission is doing very little at the present time and it might do a great deal of good in co-ordinating prices. What is the sense of coal miners in Derbyshire working only three or four days a week because coal is being brought coastwise from Durham, where it is produced at lower wages than we pay in Derbyshire? That coal is coming at 3s. to 4s. per ton freight and is being plunged on the London market to the detriment of the miners of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. That sort of thing ought to be stopped, but it will not be brought about very easily, and it will be some considerable time before any advance in miners' wages can be brought about by selling agencies.
It has been said that 1s. 3d. a ton of any increased prices must be realised before anything can go to the miners. It could easily be arranged between the coalowners that any advance in price, any improvement in the trade, should be shared with the men, and that they should not rigidly adhere to the 85–15 percentage of ascertainment. I would suggest—and I know that I am saying what the great majority of coal owners in the country do not think—to the Minister of Mines that a minimum wage Bill on the lines of the Liberal Minimum Wage Bill of 1912, which was brought in by Mr. Asquith, should be passed and that the matter should be referred to the different districts, which should be co-ordinated nationally, and that some immediate increase should be given to the men if necessary by these means, if other means fail. Although the case has perhaps been over-stated by hon. Members opposite and by many people throughout the country, everyone realises that having regard to the work done and the risks undergone, the wages paid to the mine workers are not really commensurate with the risks.
The chief suggestion that I would make is that the Coal Mines' Reorganisation Commission should be put to some useful work in devoting its energies to co-ordinating the prices. It is more essential that prices should be co-ordinated and that a better price at the pithead should be realised than that attempts should be made to force unwilling owners to amalgamate and that miners should be thrown out of work. I do not think

that there will be any great difficulty in raising the pithead price, especially to industrial consumers, at the present time. It might be that with the economies which would take place in central selling only an additional shilling would be necessary, or it might be 1s. 6d. Having regard to the position of the industry I think that industrial users of coal would willingly pay that extra money if they felt that the miners were going to get a better deal. Speaking as a user of over 50,000 tons of coal per annum, I would willingly pay something extra for my coal if I felt that we could come to some happy solution of this very difficult question. I would impress upon the Minister for Mines that the most useful thing to be done at the moment is to bring the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission into action in setting about doing something towards co-ordinating prices.

6.8 p.m.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): Perhaps it will be convenient if I briefly intervene at this stage of the Debate. It is a Private Members' day and it is in accordance with my own personal record, I suppose, that I should take part in it. I well remember what I suffered in the past from overlong orations from this bench on Wednesdays, and how I listened with impatience. Therefore, I will not inflict a long speech upon the House. I should like to say, first of all, that while, naturally, I regret the absence of those whom they have replaced if the absent hon. Members had to go there is no one that I would welcome more to our midst than the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, and not less for the very admirable way in which they stated their case. As there are many new Members it may not be out of place, especially as this is the first Wednesday on which we have discussed Private Members' Motions for a long time—there were none last year—if I say that the object of these discussions is that matters should be freely debated without necessarily any party bias; matters which are of interest to the constituents of the hon. Members taking part, or which at the particular moment at which they are raised are matters of national importance.
The Mover of the Motion told us that he has not many miners in Central Hackney. Therefore he took advantage


of his second reason that this is a matter which is engaging very seriously pubic attention and that it is right and proper that in this House, the great council of the nation, we should hear views on the question expressed freely from both sides. I do not wish to take up the various points which have been made by hon. Members because of the personal position that I hold at the moment, but it may be helpful not only to the House but to other people if I say a few words on one point. I refer to central selling. It is specifically mentioned in the Amendment and references to it have been the undercurrent of all the speeches. The position in regard to that matter is, that for some time past there has been a growing appreciation among the coalowners as a whole that something must be done to improve the proceeds of the industry. Accordingly, on 1st January last a voluntary selling arrangement was started in the Lothians, and this was followed up in Lancashire. That scheme came into effect on 1st July. It is a curious thing that for some reason or other not known to me—I was not concerned with these matters at that time—although there was an opportunity for a discussion on the subject that opportunity was not taken in the House, and there was only a, very brief reference to it in another place. Therefore, there has been no explanation, except to those who read official documents, of what is involved.
The scheme for Lancashire and Cheshire was introduced under statutory authority in accordance with Part I of the Act of 1930, and since that date all coal produced in Lancashire and Cheshire has been sold by a central organisation in the district. The adoption of that statutory provision led other districts to think more seriously than they had done before on this problem. It has been possible for me to receive on behalf of the Government, from Sir Evan Williams, Chairman of the Central Council of Colliery Owners, on behalf of the coal mining districts, an assurance that by the middle of next year there will be an organisation for the complete and effective control of the sale of coal set up in each coal mining district, with co-ordination between the districts by the Central Council. My point in regard to that is this, that these schemes will come up in the form of Amendments to the existing district schemes under the Act

of 1930. Draft Orders will have to come before the House for approval after which the detailed Amendments will have to be approved by me.
The Government made it quite clear to those who are drafting the schemes that there are certain essential conditions which we shall demand before we put the machinery of the Act into operation and give statutory effect to the schemes. The first condition is, that the schemes must cover all the coalowners in each district and that they must have a measure of permanency; that is, they are not to be drafted as something which is here to-day and gone to-morrow. Secondly, they must effectually prevent inter-colliery competition and, thirdly, they must be so drawn that evasions cannot exist. These are the conditions which the Government have laid down before these particular schemes are drafted. Of course, there is the Lancashire scheme, which in many cases may serve as a model. The conditions which I have outlined are those upon which we shall insist and upon which I think we can rely as being effective for the purpose we have in mind.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: What about inter-district competition?

Captain CROOKSHANK: That will be dealt with by the fact that there is co-ordination centrally. I thought that I had stated that. If I did not, I should like to make it clear that there is to be central co-ordination in these district schemes. There is one smaller point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach) yesterday, together with an interjection by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), which may have confused some hon. Members who are not particularly versed in regard to this problem. I think the interjection of my hon. Friend behind me was that the figure for the purpose of wage ascertainment was agreed to between the accountants on both sides. That is the case as regards ancilliary concerns. The hon. Member for Central Bradford was not referring to that, nor was I. We were dealing with the allegation that there were subsidiary selling companies. I was answering him on that point and not on the point put by the hon. Member for South Croydon. It is my intention, in connection with this reorganisation, to see that the collieries concerned are credited with the proper proceeds. If


these allegations are correct it is my intention to try and deal with them so that the proper prices can come into the ascertainment, which is the whole object of the central selling scheme. It will be realised that it is a work of very great magnitude to get these schemes devised, but all concerned are working with the utmost zeal to try and get them drafted and the advice of my Department is at their disposal to make sure that the schemes do contain the provisions which the Government have laid down. I do not propose to make a long speech, I think it is in the interests of everybody concerned that I should be as brief as possible—

Mr. T. SMITH: And as definite as possible.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I pass to the Motion which we are discussing. I must remind the House that the Government, and particularly myself, speaking as I do for the Government, are at the moment, and have been for some time past, acting as negotiators between two parties in an industrial dispute about wages. I am not conscious of having said a single word expressing my own view while in the position of negotiator as to the merits of the claims of either side, otherwise how could I negotiate? If there is to be a Division on the Amendment as against the Motion or on the Motion as against the Amendment, my colleagues and I on this bench will not take part in it, because the Motion specifically states a claim on behalf of the men in the dispute, and the hon. Member who moved the Amendment in a wise, courageous and statesmanlike speech, which appealed to everybody in the House, will be the first to admit that his Amendment is supported by two hon. Members who are coalowners. Therefore, it is quite impracticable for the Government, who are negotiating in this dispute through me, to take part in the Division on one side or the other while these negotiations are proceeding because it might be represented in this House and outside as identifying the Government with one or other of the parties to the dispute. That is not a position which, while the negotiations are proceeding, as I am happy to say they are, the Governent can take up. It is for the House to decide these matters on private Members' days.
Some hon. Members may expect me to say something as to how the negotiations

are going. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They applaud the suggestion, but I wonder if they are quite so sure that I should say anything about them now. I think not. While they are still going on, and while I hope that the good feeling which has characterised these negotiations up to the present moment, and the atmosphere which has been generated in the House this afternoon, may continue, and while I hope there will continue to be an appreciation on both sides of the difficulties of the other, I do not think it would be at all wise for me to say anything as to what has been going on or the prospects, immediate or remote. I am fortified in my attitude when I remember that the night before last the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who has had a lifelong experience of negotiations in industrial matters, said that it would be unwise to express any opinion on the part of the Government. The Prime Minister echoed very much the same sentiments the other evening, and one whom both right hon. Gentlemen will agree is wiser than they has said:
To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven … a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.
While I am entrusted with the task which I am trying to carry out to the best of my ability, I think this is indeed a time to keep silent on the issues involved.

Mr. SHINWELL: The House is expected to adjourn at the end of next week. On the assumption that the negotiations have not been completed by that time, can we have an assurance that an opportunity will be afforded to the House to discuss the matter before the Adjournment? Obviously, there will be no opportunity during the vacation, and anything may happen.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I cannot answer a hypothetical question, and matters of that kind are not in my hands. They are in the hands of the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary. I cannot promise anything like that.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. G. HALL: The most disappointing speech of the Debate is that of the Secretary for Mines. He spent three parts of his time in dealing with selling


agencies, which we shall have an opportunity of discussing in detail when they come before the House, but could tell us nothing at all about the matter in which the country is vitally concerned—the negotiations which he says are proceeding. May I say that we are very much indebted to the Secretary for Mines for the part he has taken in these negotiations, but we had hoped that he would have indicated to the House and the country the intentions of the Government, seeing that the most emphatic declarations have been made by the coal-owners in connection with this dispute. I agree that we have had very remark able speeches in the Debate. It is not for me to attempt to dot the i's and cross the t's of the speeches made by my two hon. Friends. They put up an excellent case for the Motion. Their speeches were human, and appealed to every Member of the House. We also listened with interest to the remarkable speech of the Mover of the Amendment and the hon. Member who seconded. He did not go quite as far as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. We would that all coalowners in the country were of the opinion of the two hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment. If that was the case, the task of the Secretary for Mines would be much easier than it is now, but, unfortunately, all coalowners do not share the views of the hon. Members and we have to deal with those who really wield the power.
I do not propose in my short speech to interfere with the general atmosphere which has existed since the commencement of the Debate, but it is right to say that at no time during the last eight years has public opinion been so much on the side of the miners as it is now. You can scarcely take up a newspaper which does not declare that the claims of the miners are just and should be met. During the Debate we have not heard one hon. Member defending the wages paid to miners at present, not only those who come from mining districts but those who are actually interested in the management side of the industry. The present wages of the miners cannot be justified. Indeed, I have not heard a coalowner when you approached him individually who was prepared to justify the wages of the

miners. What is the real cause of low wages? Are the miners in any way responsible for the condition which exists at present in the mining industry? I say without hesitation that the miners have responded to every demand made upon them. Output, during the last eight years, has increased by six cwts. per man per shift, that is, taking the average throughout the country. I am not going to suggest that the introduction of machinery is not in some way responsible for the increased output, but no one will deny that the employment of the miners has been considerably intensified and it is almost entirely a result of the contribution of the miners plus the assistance of machinery which is responsible for the increased output that has taken place.
But every increase of output and effort on behalf of the miners is always met, unfortunately, with reduced wages on the part of the mine owners. Only within the last two months the miners in South Wales were faced with an application for a reduction of 2½ per cent. in their wages. It was afterwards withdrawn; but that is the tendency. We feel that it is our duty to face the issue and to ask who is really responsible? I cannot quote a better authority than the Prime Minister. On Tuesday of last week, when, dealing with the mining industry, he said:
We all know, of course, that the coal-mining business is carried on in many districts and in a very large number of separate units—a method of industry which cannot conduce to economy, and which undoubtedly tends to depress the general wage level."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd October, 1935; col. 69, Vol. 307.]
The miners are not responsible for that. The hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Wragg) asked whether the coalowners were responsible for the introduction of oil in place of coal. What they are responsible for is the disposal of the commodity produced by the industry and what they have not yet realised is that it is for them to assess the value of the commodity which they are responsible for selling and on which the miners are dependent for their wages. That is the function of the owners, and we say without hesitation, and we are supported in this view by quotations from the coal-owners themselves, that they have not recognised their responsibility. I could quote many statements as to the inter-colliery


and inter-district competition which has brought down the price of coal and is responsible for the very low wages of the miners. I quote only one. These are the words of a prominent coalowner:
We all know that instead of getting better prices than we did when we began to function under the 1930 Act we are really getting lower prices. That is due to the facts that we have placed more coal on the market than there was a demand for, that we have not been able to co-ordinate the regulations of prices as between district and district and that we have not been able to prevent in the districts the evasions of the provisions of the schemes which were designed for maintaining prices at a remunerative level.
That is a quotation from a speech made by Sir Evan Williams, President of the Mining Association. He does not say that someone else is responsible. He says in effect that the coalowners are responsible for the conditions referred to in that speech and those conditions are responsible for the depressed state of the industry at the present time. We were pleased to hear that negotiations are proceeding and I understand that there are negotiations not only between the Secretary for Mines and the mineowners, but also between the mineowners and the large industrial consumers of coal. May we express the hope that both sets of negotiations will be successful? But what a humiliating position for the coal-owners. Here we have the producers of a commodity which is vital to industrial production in this country, vital to the steel industry, to the railways, to the electricity, gas and other industries, vital to the domestic comfort of the people and because the coalowners cannot agree among themselves on the value of the commodity, for the disposal of which they are responsible, they have to go to the large users of coal and beg of them an increased price in order to pay the wages which the miners are justified in demanding. The easier thing would be for the owners themselves to fix the price. Sir John Cadman, whose name is well known, I am sure, to every hon. Member here, made this statement not long ago:
To me it appears that the coal industry under-rates the value and the merits of the fuel that it produces.
There is no question about that. Who will say that large industrial consumers of coal cannot stand an increase in the pithead price to meet the legitimate

demands of the miners. The hon. Member for Eccleshall (Sir G. Ellis) said that coal had not a monopoly in power production. It has almost a monopoly. The 164,000,000 tons of coal required for domestic and industrial consumption in this country is all produced in this country. No one can send coal into this country as cheaply as it can be produced here and seven or eight years ago the industrial users of coal were prepared to pay nearly 4s. a ton more for home-produced coal than they are paying at present. During the stoppage of 1926 when coal was so essential, not only to allow the industrial life of the nation to be continued but also to assist in defeating the legitimate claims of the miners, these very industrial users of coal were prepared to pay and had to pay nearly twice as much as the average price in the course of last year. In 1926 they were paying 31s. 2d. per ton for coal and the average price for coal and coke used in the generation of electricity last year was we are told by the Minister of Transport 15s. 3d. per ton.
Coal used in the production of iron and steel in 1934 is down by 14,000,000 tons as compared with 1913, and a statement recently made shows that, as a result of economies in the use of coal, due to the efforts of the Fuel Research Department, the iron and steel industry in the last eight years has been able to save no less than £4,500,000 each year. We say that the coalowners ought to face their responsibilities. Other industrialists look on with amusement and amazement at the inefficient methods of the coalowners in selling the coal. I have in mind a statement made by the director of one of the largest gas-prolucing concerns in this country. He said it was essential for the purpose of maintaining a low price of coal that there should be free competition between different collieries, so as to enable gas undertakings to buy the most suitable coal as cheaply as possible. That is a concern which has statutory rights and enjoys a monopoly in a certain district. If only the rights which gas and electricity undertakings have by statute were applied to the coal industry, the coalowners of this country would be in El Dorado and we would not have to complain as we have to complain constantly about the low wages paid in the industry.
Much has been said about the export trade. An hon. Member has expressed the view that there should be some slight increase in the price paid for the coal which is exported. I do not want to be too hard but I say without hesitation that the coalowners in the exporting districts have not done all that they could do to protect the price obtainable for coal in the countries to which it is being exported. It has been the watchword of the coalowners since 1921 that the only way to restore prosperity to the industry is to cut prices. Notwithstanding the fact that prices have been cut we have seen our export trade falling off to an alarming extent. If exports continue for the last two months of this year as they have been for the first 10 months, the export of coal from this country will be down by 1,000,000 tons as compared with last year and bunker coal will be down by another 1,000,000 tons as compared with last year and last year's figure was only 38,000,000 tons as compared with 54,000,000 tons in 1930. In our four principal markets in Europe, France, Italy, Germany and Belgium where we had a market for 28,500,000 tons in 1930 this year we shall not have a market for more than 14,000,000 tons notwithstanding the continuous cutting in prices.
I welcome the statement of the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). I think it was very courageous on his part to say that the districts producing the coal for inland purposes are prepared to face a levy for our export trade. I think the position of the export coal trade must be faced by the industry as a whole and that the Government themselves must understand that the export coal trade is indispensable to the balance of trade between this and other countries. We in this country are not dealing with the matter as coal export is being dealt with in Germany and Poland. At the present moment we are told that subsidies to the extent of nearly 6s. per ton have been paid in some districts abroad in order to enable coal there to compete with coal exported from this country. If the coalowners had, followed the advice given to them from time to time by the Miners' Federation the coal export trade would not be in the difficulties in which it now finds itself.
On the question of a national agreement we expected the Secretary for Mines to make some statement. There is no doubt as to where the Government stand on this question of national negotiation and a national agreement. The Secretary for Mines has already committed himself upon this matter, as has the Lord President of the Council. The latter is no longer in this House but while he was a Member he publicly advised the owners that it would be in their interests to engage in national negotiation. The Government, through the Secretary for Mines, recently stated that they would welcome national negotiation and the Secretary for Mines said he would call a conference if both sides were willing to attend. May we ask him which side has refused to attend such a conference? I think I can state without fear of contradiction that it was the owners' side. The Government have encouraged national negotiation in these matters and I am sure they would deplore the fact, if, in those industries where national agreements have existed for 15 or 20 years past, those national agreements were to be broken, and a return made to district settlements. As the Government hold that view, I think they ought to take their courage in their hands in this case. I am inclined to think that some coalowners would prefer a national stoppage to a national agreement. In this matter the Government must make up their minds as to what attitude they would adopt if we were forced to that position.
I think it is safer to say, on behalf of all of us who went through 1926, that we do not want another 1926. I do not think the Government want another 1926. The cost in misery and anxiety and in the bad feeling which existed, not only during but after the struggle, was such that we had an experience that the country would never desire to have again. Not only so, but is it realised what the financial cost of the 1926 stoppage was to the country? Only five items—decrease in exports and re-exports; imports of coal, patent fuel, and transport; loss in shopkeepers' sales by loss in wages; civil, military, and other emergency costs; and loss of trade—run up a financial bill of no less than £303,000,000. That amount is sufficient to meet the cost of what the miners ask for in increase of wages, not only during the next 12 months, but for the next 30


years, and that is what is being risked in connection with this question.
The only reference that the coalowners could make against national agreements in the manifesto which they recently issued was that during the course of national agreements we had stoppages in the industry in 1921 and in 1926. Who was responsible? In 1921 it was a combination of coalowners and the Government, because the miners in South Wales and in other parts of the country refused to accept a reduction in their wages amounting in South Wales to nearly 10s. a day, half of their wages, and the miners were locked out. In 1926, because the miners again refused to agree to an extension of the working day from seven to eight hours, they were locked out. In the two instances referred to in the mineowners' manifesto it was the mineowners themselves who invited a stoppage, and unfortunately the Government assisted them in both cases to beat down the legitimate claims of the miners. We ask the Government to use a little sympathy, if sympathy is to be given, on the other side during the course of these negotiations.
It was held in 1926 that the miners were led by a lot of extremists. We do not agree. The leaders in 1926 carried out the instructions of the miners in the coal fields, but those who say that the miners in 1926 were led by extremists cannot say that the Miners' Federation at present is not led by men with very great patience and ability. After all, it must be remembered that this crisis has not been sprung upon us during the last fortnight. The Government and the coalowners have known of this demand for nearly six months, and no one has shown greater patience than have the miners' leaders and the miners' executive in dealing with this matter. Sir Evan Williams, in September of this year, complained about the propaganda which was going on by the miners for the demands which they were making. That complaint was very quickly responded to by Mr. Ebbie Edwards, Secretary to the Mineworkers Association, when he said that "the only way that we can deal with what we consider to be the legitimate grievances which are suffered by the miners is to endeavour to get public opinion on our side. If you, the mineowners,

will agree to meet us in negotiation, then we will call off this campaign at once." That invitation was not responded to.
I would like to know what the position is, because, as far as we can see, the position at the moment is at a standstill. I understand that the Secretary for Mines is continuing his negotiations. May I say to him that a very important event is taking place on Wednesday of next week as far as the miners are concerned? There is a miners' conference, and we would that the miners' leaders should have put to them the maximum offer of the mineowners within the next day or two, otherwise there will be considerable difficulty. It must be remembered that the ballot vote which was taken by the miners was very significant. Of the 438,000 who participated in that ballot, only 30,000 were against the miners' executive having the power to tender notices. The conference will be held, as I say, on Wednesday of next week, and it is as well to be quite frank with the Government and the House and to state that unless suitable terms are presented to the conference, I have no doubt at all about it that not the leaders but the representatives of the miners of this country coming from the coalfields of the country will demand that notices shall be tendered. I do not use that as a threat. I simply use it for the purpose of endeavouring to expedite the negotiations which are proceeding and for the Government to recognise the seriousness of the position as we see it.
There can be no justification for any hostility to the demands of the miners at the present time. My hon. Friend suggested that the flat rate wage claim is too high, and he would prefer that it be left for negotiation. Well, let us have negotiation. He himself was very fair when he put it that, so far as the miners are concerned, there is one negotiating body representing the whole of the miners of the country, but that there are 13 negotiating bodies representing the owners. The owners can meet to discuss every question concerning their industry, concerning the well being of the industry and their own interests, with the exception of wages. They cannot meet to discuss wages. Is that a reasonable attitude to adopt? As far back as 1925 the Samuel Commission reported:


We do not see how such a wage, in a community so small and so closely united as Great Britain, can ultimately be fixed by other than national authorities. To give a free hand to each district to settle its own standard of living without consultation and without regard to any other is to expose the standards of the more efficient and prosperous areas … to undermining by the weaker areas.
That statement was confirmed by the hon. Member for North Leeds to-day. He inferred that the Yorkshire coalowners cannot pay the Yorkshire miners what they would like to pay them because of inter-district competition and because of the low wages prevailing in other districts. There is only one way in which that matter can be dealt with, and that is by national agreements and national negotiations, and we would appeal to the Prime Minister and to the Government to make a definite declaration that it is the intention of the Government to see that in the coalmining industry national negotiations and national agreements shall exist, as in nearly every other important industry in this country. Let there be no misunderstanding. The miners are determined that they will no longer allow their wages and conditions of labour to be determined by bad organisation and mismanagement on the selling side of coal. We have persistently demanded that that should be altered.
We do not want a stoppage. A stoppage will not settle the difficulties with which the industry is confronted, and the problem will be left after the stoppage takes place, if it does take place. We, therefore, ask the House and the Government to agree with us that the owners should not shelter behind conditions which they could alter if they only themselves had the desire to do it. Coal is still the most basic of our basic industries. It carried our first industrial revolution on its back, and indirectly, through electricity, gas, and home-produced oil, it is bearing a great part in the new industrial revolution which is happening before our eyes. It is our duty, in the interests of the nation and the miners, to assess the new role of coal mining in the national fuel and power policy. The coal industry has a future, if it is only faced with vision and courage. Every week widespread poverty is being endured by millions of people because of the failure of those in charge of the industry to keep abreast of the times. We ask how much longer the mining community of this

country will have to suffer as they are suffering at the present time.

6.56 p.m.

Sir HUGH SEELY: We want to get away from turning the coal industry into what is largely a matter of memories and recriminations. There is a great deal that can be done now. I am in the coal trade, and it is a great disappointment, when you think of the immense amount of money that has been spent on mechanising and bringing the mines up to date, that we should find ourselves in the position in which we are to-day. It used to be very properly levelled at us, that is, the coalowners, that in the past the mines were not up-to-date and that if they were, conditions would be better. Well, we have remedied that matter very fully, and the mines in this country, taken as a whole, are now far more efficient than those of any other country, so that that is not a charge which can be brought against the industry to-day. Two things have come out of mechanisation. One is, of course, unemployment, the unemployment which is never going to be employed again in the coalfields of England, and that has come from mechanisation and from improved methods of getting coal. I am not going to deal with that now, because it is a matter for some other discussion, but mechanisation has also produced the curious result that men now are not getting enough money, and yet those that remain in the industry in the ordinary course ought to be getting more. I agree that if you have a machine which enables one man to do the work of two men, that one man does not necessarily get the wages of two men, but he certainly does, or should get, an increase because of the increased productiveness he is bringing into the industry. Therefore, with this increase of mechanisation which has brought a decrease in the numbers of miners employed, it is no good trying to defend the present amount of wages by saying that in proportion they are higher than they were in 1914, because they are entitled to be greater than that.
The 1930 Act, I believe, was a good one in practically every way. I still believe it could have been better if it had not been for the mutilations which were made in it from the other side. I am referring to Part I, which was, after all, very


largely taken by the Minister of that day from what had been in operation with us in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, which was the C.C.A. There were a great many things in that which were put into the 1930 Act. I was very interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) say that we might come back to a subsidy from the trade for export coal. It is an advance, to my mind, that it is possible to subsidise from the industry another part, and not to get subsidies from the Front Bench there. The hon. Member for North Leeds said that the 1930 Act had failed. Why has it failed? This is a serious point and one that, if this Act is to be enlarged, has got to be taken into consideration. It has not failed because of the men's side, and it has failed in operation largely because of what are called owners. The people in the country ought to realise that it is very difficult to say what is an owner. I happen to be one, because I own and work collieries which were my family's before me. You have given by the 1930 Act power to people who are called owners but who are not really coal-owners.
It is important to remember that you are working for gold, not coal, and that you will not be able to pay proper wages and carry on the industry properly unless you bear that in mind. You have now people who are called owners, with high responsibility, working in the industry, who in many cases are promoted salesmen, people who work very hard on one side of the industry. They are now put into a position where they have to deal with the industry as a whole and make the 1930 Act work. The Act failed largely because of that difficulty of the so-called owners.
After all, minimum prices were included and minimum prices were the means by which people thought you could pay proper wages, and I have no doubt in my mind that although there were difficulties in the original scheme of prices, if there had been any desire to make minimum prices pay, it could have been into the four corners of the Act. There are people who are not keen for that sort of action—to try to make this side of the Act work. This is where it has worked in a glaring way, because the failure of the minimum prices has produced serious

results, for it has meant that the price of house coal is too high. When the price of house coal is too high it means that you do not get the demand for it, and you get people looking elsewhere for heating and fire, and therefore you are ruining yourselves by having your house coal too high in price. The reason it is too high is this. About 45 per cent. may be smalls. In my own district there is one of the most glaring cases. There you have a city with very rich industries, people like Players and Boots. For all of these the buying of coal is not affecting their costs to any appreciable degree; it would not be noticed in their final dividends at the end of the year. Yet you will find people going around undercutting from all the collieries in Nottinghamshire, which means that you are pulling down the price of coal to an uneconomic level, and to keep up your average price you have to put up the price of house coal.
I do seriously say to the Minister that I believe that if you are to get these schemes to work in the coal trade it is no good leaving it to the coalowners to run their own industry. I know it sounds wrong, but you will have to have it. In many cases you cannot work by having only the members of the industry on the various boards of the industry and not independent people there, too. The members of the industry cannot divorce themselves from the very strong ties they have. It will have to come if you are to make some advance. I do not want to say anything greatly controversial. On the question of the national wages agreement I do not know what the hon. Member for North Leeds really means in his Amendment. I wonder whether he would insert the word "national" before "discussions."

Mr. PEAKE: I am prepared to accept an Amendment inserting the words "national and district" in front of the word "discussions."

Sir H. SEELY: I think the Members sitting on these Benches would accept that if it could be moved and seconded, and then we could vote on that, because I do feel strongly that you do not want, as the Minister said, a too definite statement to go out from this House. I do not think that at the time it is going to help. Never has the miners' case been stronger


than it is to-day. Never has it been better received in the country than to-day, and I am certain of this: you will get a result which is going to be favourable to the miners, because this time we have not had the recriminations of the past. We are all trying to put this industry back where it should be, the most profitable and biggest in the State. There is a great chance in the coal industry for people who want to employ labour and people who want to employ capital. A better time is coming, and I hope that after these negotiations we shall come to a settlement which will make that possible.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. ADAMSON: We have just listened to a very valuable contribution to the Debate to-day, which has been carried out in a spirit of toleration such as befits a motion by a Private Member, and while we have surveyed the whole of the coal mining industry very largely on one side from the economic aspects, it is just as well that from this side of the House we should seek to direct the attention not only of the House itself but of the country to the human aspect of this situation. Because after all, while we may be agreed on many of the difficulties, it is just as well that we should remind ourselves at times of ancient history with regard to the dislocation of the mining industry. In the reminder we have to go back to the days even of the Versailles Treaty which brought about, with all its implications of indemnity and reparations, the destruction of the basic industry of this country. The statesmen of the past and present Governments cannot absolve themselves from the implications that were brought about then, and the miners to-day, in visualising these aspects, are bound to consider how they have to suffer and bear the burdens that are imposed on them.
If the feeling, which has been expressed in all parts of the House, can be exercised as to the re-organisation and the re-arrangements that can help the position, so much the better for the country and for the miners. I am afraid that there will be disappointment that from the Government Front Bench this afternoon we have not had a fuller explanation of the position as it exists, because the public recognise that the organised bodies of the workers on the one side and of a vested interest and the economic

side of the industry on the other, must be brought together to discuss amicably the difficulties that both have to meet, and which must be overcome before there can be better times in the mining areas. They have been the victims of isolation—not the isolation, as the poets and dreamers have reminded us, of splendour, but rather the isolation of destitution and distress. We have only to come into contact, as many Members on both sides probably do and particularly more recently during the Election, to realise the conditions of those engaged in the industry. There are the old men prematurely aged at 50 years who have been unemployed three or more years without any prospect of getting back into the industry and unable to adjust themselves to the changed conditions. There are the conditions that their families experience. There is, too, the younger generation in the coalfields of Britain. They are not unmindful, while they have been born to the tradition of the mining industry, that there are better opportunities further afield, of which they seek to avail themselves, although they are limited because of external competition. The younger men in their innermost hearts and souls have no desire to be engaged in the mining industry because of the conditions that may be enforced on them and because of the outlook, which can only be that of their forefathers of living under evil conditions with bad surroundings, the eternal problem of poverty and no expectation of anything better.
It is pleasing to note from the speech we have just heard that the Liberalism which is still retained in this House sees that the vested interest as controlled by the mineowners to-day cannot be allowed to go unchallenged, and that power should be taken out of their hands so that the industry can be carried on in the interests of the nation as a whole. I wish we could have had some fuller statement from the Government Front Bench as to what the Government's intentions are to cover the interim period before the setting up of the selling agencies. I wish, too, that they would announce that they intend to exercise their power to impose sanctions upon the oppressors who resist every effort that is made to bring them to sit round the conference table to discuss problems that affect not only the 750,000 miners and their dependents, but the nation as a


whole. While we ask that these negotiations should continue, we might at least, before the end of this Debate, be given some hope that a statement will be made before we rise for the Recess.
There have been comparisons to-day between the prices for export and domestic coal. I represent a part of the mining industry that is mainly concerned in the production of domestic coal and we find that there is little differentiation. The wages are even more meagre than the average throughout the country, even comparing them with those in the export trade. Because of this differentiation it is essential, not merely that the discussions should take place locally, but that they should later be transferred to national negotiations for the final decision. I ask the Minister to exercise his powers to bring the parties together in order to find some formula that they can discuss round the table and to deal with the interim conditions prior to the establishment of the selling agencies which, in the Government's belief will, belated as they are, bring better conditions to the industry. No part of the community desires to see a conflict in the mine fields again. No part of the community can bear the responsibility of such a conflict being forced on the mining community. The miners have no more to lose than they are losing to-day. Working three days on and three days off, they have to seek transitional benefit, they are cast on to public assistance and many have to appeal to the heads of their families to help them over their difficulties.
Conditions cannot be made worse for the miners. Not only the mineowners, but the ancillary occupations that gain benefits from the mining industry, are concerned in this question. The industries of electricity and gas have been mentioned. The profits of private and public utility companies which produce electricity amounted in 1932–33 to about £40,000,000. The coal is supplied to them at uneconomic prices, which, according to the Minister of Transport, average 15s. 7d. per ton. Having practically the powers of a monopoly behind them, surely a re-assessment of those prices to electricity undertakings could be made, provided that any increase went directly to those actually engaged in producing the coal and bringing it from the bowels of

the earth to the pithead. We believe on these benches that too much stress can be laid upon the question whether the mining industry can afford to pay higher wages. The human aspect is the only aspect that ought to be considered under the existing conditions. I ask the Government to do something between now and the Recess to bring the parties together for an amicable discussion so that they can bring about some degree of satisfaction, not only to the nation at large, but to the mining industry and those engaged in it, that they are being given a fair and square deal.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. DENMAN: I have no intention of trying to talk out the Motion, but perhaps in a few moments a layman may add to what a layman so admirably began this afternoon. I want to express adhesion to an old principle, the principle of the minimum wage, and to explain why I am giving a vote in favour of this Motion. I do not take it that it commits the House to the precise plan now in dispute. It is a concise statement that this House regards the miners as justified in claiming an immediate national increase. "Immediate," of course, means as soon as is practicable. I do not take "national" to mean uniform, but I do want an increase to be at least as national as this Government is national. What is to be affirmed here is the old principle of the minimum wage. About a generation ago we accepted the principle that industry should not be allowed to pay its workpeople below a reasonable standard. That was set out in the Trade Boards Act, and I have often wondered why the miners do not claim a trade board. All the machinery exists for a central body and district committees. That principle should now be applied one way or another. There can be no doubt that there is universal agreement that miners' wages in these days are below what is reasonable. I do not know whether hon. Members happened to read an extremely interesting paper that was read before the Royal Statistical Society last summer, from which it appeared that the miners and textile workers alone had suffered real serious diminution in money wages from 1924 to 1934. The difference between the suffering of the miners in that respect and almost all other workers except those


in the textile trades was most remarkable. There is no reason why that should go on longer. The Government may be assured that if it is necessary for them to take determined and strong action, and to see that this industry is so organised as to be able to provide adequate wages it will have the support of public opinion of all sections. The simple old-fashioned way of doing this was merely to lay down a system of minimum wages and then leave it to the industry

to organise itself on those minimum wages. If the industry is incapable of doing that of itself, the Government must go the next stage and help actively in the organisation of the industry so that those wages are payable.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 179.

Division No. 6.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Oliver, G. H.


Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Owen, Major G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, H. J. H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hardie, G. D.
Parkinson, J. A.


Ammon, C. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Potts, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Quibell, J. D.


Batey, J.
Hicks, E. G.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Bellenger, F.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Benson, G.
Holdsworth, H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Bevan, A.
Holland, A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Broad, F. A.
Hollins, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bromfield, W.
Hopkin, D.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Brooke, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rowson, G.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cape, T.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Sexton, T. M.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Shinwell, E.


Chater, D.
Kelly, W. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Compton, J.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Daggar, G.
Lathan, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dalton, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leonard, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Day, H.
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Edge, Sir W.
McGovern, J.
Walker, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Welsh, J. C.


Foot, D. M.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Westwood, J.


Frankel, D.
Mander, G. le M.
White, H. Graham


Gallacher, W.
Marklew, E.
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, B. W.
Marshall, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Maxton, J.
Williams. E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Messer, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Milner, Major J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gibbins, J.
Montague, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, D. R.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.




NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Balniel, Lord
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)


Apsley, Lord
Baxter, A. Beverley
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Assheton, R.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Beaumont, Han. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Bull, B. B.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, sutton)
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Bullock, Capt. M.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Burton, Col. H. W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Carver, Major W. H.




Cary, R. A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsden, Sir E.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rankin, R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hepworth, J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Remer, J. R.


Channon, H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Holmes, J. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hopkinson, A.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Clarry, R. G.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Rowlands, G.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cochrane, Comdr. Hon. A. D.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Keeling, E. H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Salt, E. W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kimball, L.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sandys, E. D.


Critchley, A.
Latham, Sir P.
Savery, Servington


Crooke, J. S.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Scott, Lord William


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Selley, H. R.


Crossley, A. C.
Lees-Jones, J.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Liddall, W. S.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


De Chair, S. S.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Smithers, Sir W.


Denville, A.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Donner, P. W.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
McKie, J. H.
Storey, S.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Duggan, H. J.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dunne, P. R. R.
Magnay, T.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Eastwood, J. F.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Tate, Mavis C.


Emery, J. F.
Maxwell, S. A.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Entwistle, C. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Touche, G. C.


Errington, E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Everard, W. L.
Moreing, A. C.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Fildes, Sir H.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Turton, R. H.


Fleming, E. L.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.
Wakefield, W. W.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
O'Connor, T. J.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Furness, S. N.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Gledhill, G.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gluckstein, L. H.
Petherick, M.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Pilkington, R.
Wragg, H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Plugge, L. F.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Grimston, R. V.
Porritt, R. W.



Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Proctor, Major H. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Purbrick, R.
Sir Geoffrey Ellis and Mr. Peake.


Guy, J. C. M.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Mr. D. GRENFELL: rose—

It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

DISTRESSED AREAS.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the grave situation in the distressed areas demands a vigorous positive policy which, amongst immediate measures, will relieve the local authorities of the exceptionally heavy burdens which now rest upon them, and will provide schemes of afforestation and land settlement and promote the development of other new industries and services in accordance with a considered plan for the proper utilisation of our economic and human resources.

I beg leave to assure the House that in opening this Debate I shall occupy the shortest possible amount of time. Several hon. Members behind me and in other quarters of the House are anxious to contribute to our deliberations and are in possession of special information which the House should have. Therefore, I shall confine myself almost exclusively to an exposition of the general position in relation to this problem. Before reaching items of controversy, for there are such, I propose to state the points upon which there is a substantial measure of agreement in all quarters of the House. So far as I can understand the position, there seems to be no essential difference in regard to the facts themselves. I take my stand upon the Government's admission of the existence of this particular problem and upon the fact that there is upon the Order Paper an Amendment


which in itself indicates the presence in our midst of distressed areas and the problem relating to those places.
There is undoubtedly distress on an unprecedented and exceptional scale. There is vast unemployment, with its inevitable corollary of intense hardship and poverty. I content myself with that bare statement of the position. I do not seek now or at any other time to arouse the emotions of hon. Members. On Monday night the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies made several submissions to the House. He said there was no monopoly of sympathy in any party for those who live in distressed areas, and with that submission I am in cordial agreement. Nothing is to be gained by the presumption, for such it is, that there exists no desire on the benches opposite for a solution of this problem. That submission, I repeat, is accepted so far as I am personally concerned. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman maintained—I use his own language—that in the course of the four years of the previous Government's term of office rare and refreshing fruit had emerged. That, again, for the purposes of my argument, I accept. It would be strange indeed if, out of the welter, the range of legislation for which the National Government were responsible nothing useful had emerged. Here and there undoubtedly there were legislative advantages. In my view these disputations, these polemics, are of little value. Consequently, I am ready to concede to the Government Benches many things which it might be thought we should deny. This may be the best country in the world. There may be confidence in the National Government. It may well be that the crisis has disappeared and that there is a majority of electors contented with the present Government. Notwithstanding that, the problem of the distressed areas persists and to that we must turn our attention.
The question is not whether the Government have done this, that or the other, or whether they have been proved right or wrong, but rather as to how the problem, an admitted problem, is to be tacked and disposed of. Before I venture on some observations as to the technique necessary to deal with the problem, may I direct the attention of

hon. Members to inappropriate methods and how not to deal with the problem. The Attorney-General made a speech on Monday night—I do not seek to raise any unnecessary controversy—which was to put it mildly, thoroughly unhelpful. It was not a substantial contribution to the solution of this or any other problem. His speech was characterised by the fatal philosophy of complacency. I judge by what he said that if the Attorney-General remained in the Government, if his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister remained an honest man, if his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies continued to wear the cap and bells and to provide a touch of light comedy in our deliberations, and if that perpetual ray of sunshine, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, continued to provide a few coppers out of the bag, all would be better than well. That fatal complacency is the worst means of dealing with this great problem. It simply—and I use commonplace terms which will be readily understood—it simply will not do.
I turn now to the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir J. Jarvis). I am sorry he is not in his place, but I make no complaint. He spoke of the desirability of promoting voluntary service. I hope that the wells of compassion will remain inexhaustible, but no amount of compassion, and of voluntary service that springs from compassion, can make a substantial contribution to the solution of this problem. The decoration of interiors in working-class homes is no doubt desirable and the provision of social service welfare schemes equally so, but they leave the main texture of the problem untouched. The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. de Chair) appears to have failed singularly in detecting the right solution. I find that he said in the course of his speech on Monday:
I further suggest the development of existing organisations, such as the Personal Service League, into an official organisation parallel with the National Labour Reserve, to mobilise all those supplies of surplus food which, although perfectly wholesome, are discarded daily from restaurants, hotels and so forth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1935; col. 699, Vol. 307.]
That is the kind—I feel I must say this, in the circumstances—of aristocratic and arrogant presumption which arouses


more hostility than all the agitators there may be in the Labour party or elsewhere in the country at the present time. I hope that that quotation from his speech will be broadcast throughout his constituency. Moreover, it is no solution of the problem to do as the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) suggested in his speech, to say in effect, "Conditions are not as satisfactory as I should like them to be, but they might be worse." That is a useless attitude and offers no solution.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who speak in this fashion fail to appreciate that we are living in a modern world, where problems are changing in their perplexity and character every day and require new technique and boldness, and even audacity. We require much courage if we are to reach a solution of the problem now under review. Let me invite the attention of hon. Members to some of the causes. We have to consider the normal process of industrial dislocation, of what otherwise might be described as the wear and tear of capitalist industry, the very natural and inevitable ravages of Capitalism. Moreover, there is the abnormal dislocation of industry which is very largely the aftermath of the Great War, and consequently, and in turn, the unsettlement in Europe. There is intense economic competition. Those are all contributory factors. Then, so far as we in this country are primarily concerned, there is the drift to the South of England. Here I warn hon. Members that that tendency has been considerably exaggerated in speeches, but I do not make too much of that point.
Finally I come to what, in my humble judgment, is the main contributory cause, namely, rationalisation in industry. It is to this consideration that I venture to direct the attention of the House. I will not weary hon. Members with unnecessary figures, but I have extracted several statistics in relation to some of our basic industries. These figures are pregnant with meaning in relation to this problem. I shall take coal first. In 1933 there were employed in the mining industry 793,944 persons. That number includes salaried persons. In 1934 the number was 784,773, so that in the course of 12 months 9,171 fewer persons were employed. If we take the actual mine

workers we find that in 1933 the number employed was 773,640, and that in 1934 it had dropped to 772,831, a net reduction of 809 persons.
Singularly enough we produced 13,000,000 tons more coal in 1934 than we produced in 1933, but with 809 fewer mine workers employed in the industry. It may be said that this applies primarily to one industry, but it applies to others. Before I pass to others I direct attention and invite the observations of the right hon. Gentleman before me upon the fact that 4,063 more boys under 16 years of age were employed in the mining industry in 1934 as against 1933. There was, therefore, a reduction in the number of persons employed in the industry, an increase to the tune of 13,000,000 tons in output and the employment of more than 4,000 boys under 16.
I pass to railways. In 1935 it was found that 35,000 fewer persons were employed by the railway companies in this country as against the number employed in 1931. As regards the cotton industry—I speak of the cotton industry advisedly because Lancashire is not regarded as one of the special depressed areas—the figures denote that the problem is much wider than is imagined. In the four years from 1931 to 1934 there were 97,000 fewer workers employed in the Lancashire cotton industry. What about production? Unfortunately I am unable to give the figures for 1934, but I can give the figures for 1930 as against 1933. In 1930, 3,179,000,000 yards were produced, but in 1933 they were up to 3,424,000,000 yards, a substantial increase in output, notwithstanding the fact that 97,000 fewer workpeople were employed. Comparative figures might be furnished—I have them here—in relation to exports.
Just a word about agriculture. Between 1925 and 1931—I take this from the Standard Price Committee report-86,000 fewer workers were employed and agricultural output was substantially increased. In my view these are the integral and cardinal ingredients in the problem, and it is to this aspect of it that we must turn our attention. We have to consider what are the causes of this reduction in the number of persons employed and at the same time the substantial increase in output. I have already said that it is due to rationalisation and partly to the adoption of new methods in production,


but what does it matter what the causes may be? The question is, what is the solution? Is the solution to be found by working for increased trade? I understand that it is one of the objects of the Government to promote an increase in trade, but in fact we are now in the midst of a boom in trade. The Prime Minister himself has declared that the recovery which set in a few years ago is now being arrested. We may look forward, as economists familiar with the subject have declared, to another industrial slump, perhaps more devastating in its character than any slump we have experienced in recent years. Certainly we cannot expect the solution as a result solely of an increase in trade. You have increases in output but nevertheless a reduction in the number of persons employed.
Is a solution to be found in the adoption or the continued adoption and application of a tariff policy? Tariffs have been tried. For my part I think it is just as well that we did try them. We have got rid of that controversy. It was said for many years by members on the other side that the promotion of a tariff policy would solve the unemployment problem. It has neither solved the problem nor contributed in any substantial measure to its solution. Tariffs may infuse new life of an artificial character—an infusion of oxygen into a dying industry—but it is no solution. It has been tried and so far it has failed. I challenge hon. Members on the other side on that score. Is a solution to be found in unrestricted trade—and here I turn my attention to the Liberal benches? The junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) the other day said that the removal of restrictions on trade would contribute to a permanent recovery. The junior Member for Dundee is somewhat younger than I am, and he may take it from me that long before the War, long before we spoke of special and distressed areas, and long before the adoption of a tariff policy, there was unemployment on a vast scale. I myself participated in unemployment agitations in the city of Glasgow as long ago as 1908, and we had no tariffs then. There was unrestricted trade, and unrestricted trade in itself is no contribution to a, permanent recovery.
Is a solution to be found in more intense competition in industry and lower price levels? Do lower price levels in industry mean more wages? That is a game of beggar my neighbour, because

if we reduce the cost of production in this country our competitors in other countries adopt the same course. Nor is the solution in my judgment to be found in de-rating, or "confidence," whatever that may mean, or subsidies, or by any other form of capitalist device. For years we have had tariffs, subsidies and "confidence," and yet the Prime Minister declares that the problem of the distressed areas still baffles the Government. It has not yielded to the orthodox treatment that has hitherto been applied.
Are we to confess failure? This House will not confess failure in this regard; at least I hope not. Hon. Members on these benches refuse to confess failure, whatever the opinion of the Government may be. If this problem is not tackled in a serious vein worse may befall. Why not make an effort to deal with the problem? I want to ask several questions of the right hon. Gentleman. Immediately after his appointment in July he spoke for a considerable time in this House on the question of whether or not the recommendations of the Commissioners for the distressed areas should be applied. He said:
The House will know that everything in this report will receive the most careful consideration of the Government, and where action can be taken it will be taken. The Government will do what they have continuously done about this problem and will take the necessary action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1935; col. 1689, Vol. 304.]
It was said of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, not in this connection but in connection with other portions of it, that it was somewhat vague and nebulous in character. There is no nebulosity in this. Having regard to this unambiguous statement, I present the right hon. Gentleman with several interrogations. How many men have been placed in work as a result of the application, if any, of the Commissioners' report? I think that question deserves an answer. The right hon. Gentleman and his Government had several inquiries, and several schemes were presented to the Government. How many schemes have been accepted by the Government If any have been rejected, and I assume that some may have been rejected, what was the reason for their rejection Moreover, how many work schemes are in contemplation by the Government? What is the measure of the relief the


Government have in contemplation to ease the burden on local rating which we are told paralyses industrial development? Is anything to be done to remove the incidence of rating in relation to the charges for unemployment? I think the right hon. Gentleman might satisfy our inquiries on those heads.
Now I come to a submission for which the Prime Minister was responsible. He spoke of trading estates. Can we have some explanation as to what is meant by trading estates? Are they to remain phantom in character or are they to assume life? Where are they to be placed and what is to be their operation I come to a question which has several tragic aspects—the employment of women in the distressed areas and in particular in the mining area. In a moving speech the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Ritson) spoke of young women in the mining areas being forced to enter domestic service. Some, no doubt, did it voluntarily, but the question I put to the right hon. Gentleman is whether it is in contemplation to devise schemes which can give employment to women in their own areas? A good deal remains to be said about this matter, but I refrain. I ask the right hon. Gentleman finally what methods the Government intend to employ to counteract the effects of the new technique in industry to which I have referred?
I venture very briefly several submissions in relation to work that might be put into operation. I preface my remarks on this subject with this observation. I do not believe the schemes that I am now about to outline, not in detail but in general form, can provide a solution of the problem. At the best they are only temporary in character. I begin with South Wales. What is to be done about the de-watering of the South Wales coalfields? The right hon. Gentleman who was the Secretary for Mines knows something about this subject. It would make a very substantial contribution to the safety of mine workers, relieve burdens on the mineowners in regard to pumping arrangements, and release at the very least, in the opinion of experts, 35,000,000 tons of available coal. I understand that the scheme would cost £1,500,000. The mineowners, it has been said, have not the money.

Will the Government come to the aid of the South Wales mining industry in this relation and at the same time materially assist to provide employment in that distressed area? What is to be done with the 300,000 acres available for afforestation? I hope my hon. Friends behind me who are to take part in this Debate will have something to say about afforestation and the paucity of schemes that have emerged from the Government in this regard.
Now I turn to Scot land. Are we to hear anything about the contemplated Forth Bridge—the road bridge—or the Tay Bridge, which would employ thousands of workers in Scotland, would assist the iron and steel trades, and contribute materially to the industrial development of the East of Scotland and particularly to the division represented by the right hon. Gentleman—the Leith Docks for example? It would link up the Leith Docks, which are very valuable docks indeed, with the Highlands of Scotland, with the industries of Fife and the industries of Forfar, and develop the industrial areas of the north of Scotland. Is anything to be done on the question of land settlement in Scotland? Sir Arthur Rose mentioned this subject in his report. So far as I know no schemes have emerged. I make the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman—it may be regarded as a trifling one—of fruit farming in the middle belt of Scotland. Something in this direction has already been done and I believe it can be developed. The hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Lieut.-Colonel Colville) approves.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): With tariffs.

Mr. SHINWELL: With or without tariffs, I am not concerned. You have got your tariffs and I make no complaint; and if I did make any complaint, in any case the tariffs would remain. If the hon. and gallant Member believes that there are possibilities in fruit farming, with tariffs or without, get on with the job. I leave Scotland, not that there is not much more to be said, but because I want to come to Durham. I made reference in the course of my speech last week to the possibility of a gas grid in


Durham. I believe that is a very valuable project and one that would assist the unemployed in that distressed area and could be regarded as a valuable contribution. Will he not at least order an inquiry into this matter? Also I hope we shall hear something from the Government in relation to further contemplated schemes, if any, in regard to the production of oil from coal. I notice that the hon. Member for Gateshead spoke freely about the subject on Monday night. What is the Government to do about that?
Now I come to the general situation. Is anything to be done generally in connection with schemes of drainage? We have had heavy rains in the country. Those who travel around see thousands of acres flooded out. It is a pitiful and pathetic spectacle, altogether inconsistent with our conception of planning for civilisation. We can hardly describe ourselves, as hon. Members have done, as the best country in the world so long as that spectacle confronts us. If money is required, the right hon. Gentleman himself may be appealed to, because he has himself said that finance is not the obstacle in our path. I would ask him also to turn his attention to the provision of more adequate hospital accommodation throughout the country. It is painfully inadequate. The matter cannot be left entirely to voluntary associations as in the past; they are already heavily handicapped. It cannot be left to the municipal authorities, burdened as they are by high rates. Cannot something be done nationally to deal with the problem of inadequate hospital accommodation? In short, what I are asking for is a national spring cleaning. The best time to indulge in spring cleaning is at a moment of enforced leisure. Now is the appropriate time.
If the problem is to be tackled adequately, we must go beyond what I have said. Rationalisation and its effects can only be cured by the adoption of shorter hours of labour. I shall not argue that question to-night; it is much too big. I agree that in certain industries a reduction in the hours of labour—I will not shirk the difficulty—leads to increased cost of production. Indeed, if it did not lead to increased cost of production it would hardly be valuable. But in the mining industry a reduction in the hours of labour would undoubtedly put many unemployed miners back in the industry,

and it would be much better to put them back in work, even if it meant an increased cost of production, than to continue the payment of doles. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to turn his attention seriously to that aspect of the subject.
Let the Government proceed—and here I turn to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who was recently Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, and who was associated with the Board of Trade—let the Government proceed with these trading agreements. Hon. Members on the Liberal benches decry the trading agreements. I am not concerned about decrying this, that or the other scheme; I would say, "Get on with your schemes. The more trading agreements we have the better, so long as they produce more employment." Indeed, I do not object to anything at all if it provides work and leads to a material solution of our problem. At all events, we cannot neglect the problem—that is my primary submisison to hon. Members. It is not sufficient for hon. Members opposite to say, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not say, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said before the General Election, if, indeed, he did not say it during the Election, that the Government hoped that in three or four years it might be possible to deal with the problem of the distressed areas. Hon. Members in this assembly can afford to wait; we can be patient; we can restrain ourselves; but those who live in the distressed areas are unable to contemplate the next four years with fortitude. I have said that I will not bring emotion to my aid. I dislike it. It is better to deal with the facts in a hard-headed and practical manner. If a solution can be found, let it be found, and let the Government turn their attention to the possibility of a solution.
One final word. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper. It admits the existence of this vast problem. But it indicates satisfaction with the Government. I venture to say that hon. Members—and here I turn to the hon. Lady who represents Wallsend (Miss Ward)—have a different political temperament at the beginning of a Parliament from the political temperament that they manifest at the end of a Parliament. I say that with the utmost friendliness, because I had the privilege


of reading some of the hon. Lady's speeches immediately before Parliament was dissolved. She belittled the Government; she lambasted the Government; in fact, I thoroughly enjoyed reading her speeches. But, if hon. Members do that at the end of a Parliament, let them do it now; let them not content themselves with half measures. With these words I conclude. I am painfuly conscious that not half, not a tithe of the case has been stated, but I leave the gaps to be filled in by hon. Members behind me.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. WELSH: I beg to second the Motion, which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend.
I do not think the House can discuss a question of more importance to the people of this country than the question of the distressed areas as they exist to-day. It seems to me, not that there is any lack of experience of the distressed areas, but that there is no real will to tackle the problem that affects the people in those areas. The resources of our country, both material and human, are ample if the will exists in this House to bring a larger measure of life to the people of this country. We only need to look at the facts as they are. I do not know why those facts should not be mentioned, though I have heard quite a number of Members in this House discount these questions when they have touched on the distresses of the people in those areas, appearing to apologise for bringing in "sob stuff." Phrases of that description are no answer to the question. Whether it is regarded as emotional, or sentimental, or whatever one may like to call it, the truth is still there. The people are suffering; they desire to have relief; and we believe that the means to give them relief exist to-day.
The statistics issued by local authorities in those districts impress one very considerably. There is the matter of rating, and I would point out in parenthesis that it is peculiar that the distressed areas are the areas that are suffering most from high rates. Their burden does not seem to be recognised throughout the country as a whole. These depressed areas, which have been struggling for so long, are left to carry their own burden, and one sees year after year the rates leaping up by shillings in the pound, and creating

more distress than there was some years ago. I know that very many factors have contributed to this, and there is no one solution. It may be a matter of approach from many different ways, but the will seems to me lacking. It seems that the House does not mean to apply itself to relieving the distress of the people in those areas.
In the district from which I come there have been increases in the rates within the last year due entirely to the necessity of relieving the destitution of the people—in Hamilton, 2s. in the £; Greenock, 1s. 11d.; Glasgow, 1s. 10d.; Dumbarton, 1s. 6d.; and Clydebank, 1s. 2d. Taking the industrial areas of Scotland as a whole, the rates have risen in the last 12 months by 37 per cent. According to the annual report of the Scottish Department of Health the destitute able-bodied heads of families in those areas increased during the last 12 months by 45 per cent. and the number of dependants of those heads of families by 55 per cent. One could go on giving statistics of that kind, yet they do not convey anything like the meaning of the suffering that exists. The burden on these localities is crushing. The small shop-keeping class, the professional classes, what are designated in many cases the lower-middle class, are suffering inordinately, although hitherto there has been silence as far as they are concerned. Ordinary members of the community do not realise the amount of suffering that goes on among that class of the people. I know any number of small shopkeepers who have struggled to build up their little businesses and taken a pride in them. Not only have they had to face the competition brought about by the multiple shops and the expansion and evolution that have taken place in commercial life, but they have had to meet the higher burden of the rates and, if it is hard on them, the hardship is infinitely greater on their wives, who silently try to maintain a respectable front to the world. The human suffering in that respect has been very considerable.
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment for the Liberal party yesterday mentioned that one of my colleagues said that no one could understand the ravages of unemployment who had not experienced it, and he went on to say that no one should get the idea into his head that there was not an understanding of


the position by men of his status—that there was plenty of sympathy. Sympathy would have solved it long ago if it could have done. There is no more sympathetic institution in the world than this House of Commons. There is no one in the House or outside it without any amount of sympathy, but it is not sympathy that is wanted. It is common justice. We have spent hundreds of millions of pounds in seeking to alleviate the condition of the unemployed but I question very much whether all the expenditure is not outweighed by the damage that has been done to the moral and spiritual character of our people in those areas. A new generation has grown up which in hundreds of thousands of cases have never known what the discipline that labour brings to the formation of character has meant. That young generation constitutes a problem with which statesmanship in the very near future will find very great difficulty in dealing.
A passage in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) brought out a point with which I have come in direct contact all my life. She quoted the report of the medical officer of health for Hebburn showing how maternity mortality had risen from 86 to 108 per thousand owing entirely to the working and the increasing severity of the means test. The mother of a family has always held it to be her prerogative and privilege to make the first sacrifice, and that undermines her power of resistance in the greatest trial of her life. Here is something that ought to be investigated, because from every depressed area in the country the same tale can be told. Any number of commissions and committees have been set up. I should like to see a commission investigating how far poverty and destitution have affected the physical and mental life of the people during the last few years. A commission on these lines would present a report that would stagger the House. The hon. Lady said there had been no epidemic in Hebburn during that period. The only epidemic was hunger. It is endemic, in fact, and it goes on.
There is no need to continue dwelling upon what every hon. and right hon. Member in this House knows already. One could do it, but I want to suggest one or two things that might help in the district from which I come to alleviate

the distress as far as unemployment is concerned. My hon. Friend mentioned the Tay and the Forth Bridges schemes which are eminently practicable, but there is another scheme which would find employment for a large number of men in that district, and which would add to the real wealth not only of Scotland, but of the whole of this island. I remember that 12 years ago in this House I happened to be speaking in a similar Debate, and I suggested to the Government of that time that the mid-Scotland deep water canal scheme might be put into operation. Since that time a considerable amount of work has been done. The advantages that would accrue not only to Scotland but to the whole country would be very considerable. At the present time the coastal service from Liverpool, Cardiff and other parts of the West coast demand a two days' journey round the North of Scotland or round the South coast of England in order to get to the East coast ports of Scotland. Such a deep water canal would save a day in that journey, but much more important would be the fact that it would bring the northern countries of the Continent of Europe a least a day and a half's journey nearer the Continent of America, and would cut off the most dangerous part of the voyage round the North of Scotland. In that way it would increase the value of the assets of this country and would increase its resources. Here would be something that would bring a very considerable amount of relief to that part of the country.
It has been said on other occasions that a certain important battle in the history of this country was won on the playing fields of Eton. That may be very true, but it is equally true that the economic conquest of the world was won in those industrial areas. Men who have hewn coal in the bowels of the earth have helped to cleave the way to a great Empire for this country. Men have not only produced ships which are the pride of the world, but in producing them they have built a monument to their own craftsmanship and the character of the people of this country. They have not only made bridges of iron and steel, but they have spanned the hemisphere and brought the distant places of the earth to our doors. They have not only manufactured machinery, but they have climbed the heights of the great wild hinterlands


of the earth. They have broken down false frontiers which had hitherto existed in the world. But so great has been the concentration on doing these things that we seem to have neglected the development of our own resources and of our own people. They have not only spun and woven millions of bales of cotton and other materials, but they have woven a pattern to the web of civilisation which for beauty, stability, and aesthetic value has mapped this country out as one of the greatest countries to-day. It is often thought that we do not love our own country. We do, but that does not prevent us from criticising those who are managing our country when we think they are not doing right.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour that some of these schemes which have been suggested, particularly in his own area of Leith, with its huge amount of unemployment as well as its heavy rating—though it is not so heavily rated as some of the other distressed areas—would relieve the depression and ease the lot of the people. Are we not of the same blood and bone as the men who a few generations ago made all that great impression on world expansion and on civilisation? If with less resources and fewer facilities they have done all those things that I have indicated, why do we stand still? Why do we not tackle this question of the better distribution of the wealth of the country so that a higher standard of life can come to the people? It is an infinitely easier problem. We have greater resources and more facilities to-day. The only thing lacking is the will to do it for this country. If we develop the resources of our own country we shall set in a wider cultural development as well as in commercial strength, a higher standard and example to the world of which we shall all be proud in generations to come.

8.42 p.m.

Miss WARD: I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House welcomes the decision of His Majesty's Government to press forward with an energetic policy for dealing with the special problems of the distressed areas and assures His Maajesty's Government of its whole-hearted co-operation and support.
I am indeed fortunate that the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell)

should have given me such a very good opening for my remarks, because I may remind him that I was one of the 50 points against the National Government used by the Labour party during the recent General Election. I should like to thank hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway for the very effective publicity which they gave me among my opponents, publicity which I might not otherwise have obtained. Ii the hon. Member would do me the honour to go into the history of my Parliamentary career he would find that the speech which was selected by the "Daily Herald" for inclusion in the 50 points against the National Government was delivered by me, I believe, in 1932, and the General Election did not take place until 1935.
I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Seaham with great amazement, and I perused the terms of the Motion standing in his name with even greater amazement. I do not want to do the hon. Member an injustice, but I am not quite certain whether the Motion on the distressed areas has not been selected by the Labour party to-night in order to pay the debt which they owe to the Council of Action for the support which the Council of Action gave to the majority of the Labour Members during the Election campaign. It seems to me that the terms of the Motion and the speech of the hon. Gentleman rather usurped broadly the suggestions which were put forward by the Council of Action. At any rate, I never grudge the repayment of a debt, and I am very glad, indeed, to think that in my part of the world on Tyneside so many of my colleagues and myself were returned without the necessity for the repayment of that debt. I would also point out that as far as the hon. Member is concerned, he never once referred during the course of his address to the misfortunes of capitalism nor did be indicate that the situation in the distressed areas could not be cured unless the capitalist system was abolished. Neither, curiously enough, did he suggest that the methods for the absorption of the unemployed which are used in Russia should be studied by the Government. I can only assume that, after having listened to the admonitions given by the right hon. Member for South


Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), the Labour party have decided to throw over the manifesto on which they fought the Election, in the hope that they may be able to prepare a suitable part to play for their return after the next General Election.
In all sincerity, I would say that I come from a part of the country in which, as hon. Members know very well, there is very real distress and very real hardship. I am perfectly confident that if the plan of the Mover and Seconder of the Motion had been heard in the constituencies which they now represent, they would not be sitting here to-night. It is not consistent with the Labour party's policy during the Election campaign, when they promised the aged people that if they would give them their support their pensions would be increased to £1 a week, and that the age for the giving of pensions would be reduced. That plan is out of touch with the manifesto of to-night, which merely stated that the increase of old age pensions will receive the favourable consideration of the Labour party if they return to power. When I go round the North of England, where I have lived for a long number of years, more years than I care to remember, I should hesitate before I made promises to people who are not able to appreciate the difference between the Labour programme that is advocated in the country and speeches such as we have heard tonight from the hon. Member for Seaham.
In what I am going to say to the Government I am not going to disappoint the hon. Member for Seaham, because it has never been my policy merely to give support irrespective of facts. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in regard to the suggestions and the criticisms which I shall make will do me the honour of realising that, as a back-bencher, I am not in possession of the full facts and am not aware of the many difficulties which the Government have to face in trying to grapple with the very real problem of the areas for which I speak. I have given as much thought as I could to areas such as mine, and I have come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that it is impossible to produce any one big scheme which will provide a reasonable solution for the unemployment

in the special areas. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on the variety of proposals which they have placed before the country and on the variety of proposals on which they are going to base their policy for the future.
If I may venture to make one or two suggestions and to offer one or two criticisms, they will be offered and made on these lines. I believe that there is far too little co-ordination between Government Departments. It seems to me to be the policy of His Majesty's Government to expect my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and his Department, possibly combined with the assistance of the Minister without Portfolio, to tackle the whole of the problems of the distressed areas, irrespective of any help of any other Government Department. In relation to these problems, my right hon. Friend should be able to draw from all Government Departments, in order that a proper policy may be arranged to meet the situation. I should like to pay a warm tribute to the staff of the Ministry of Labour, who have suffered many visits from me, and who have always helped me in every possible way. I do not think that hon. Members quite appreciate the enormous amount of detailed work that is done by the staff on this very important question. I have appreciated it enormously. In regard to transference, the men for whom transference is desired—men who have been out of work for two, three or even more years, and who probably will not have a chance of being reabsorbed into the industry which formerly provided them with a livelihood, men who are anxious to offer themselves—are very often turned down because they are not in a physically fit condition to stand the strain of transfer, or to receive instruction at an instructional centre, or to receive training at a training centre. If a man who is willing to transfer or to offer himself for training at a training centre is not suitable for transfer or for training, because of some very small physical weakness—in the majority of cases that I have come across there has been very little wrong with them—the Ministry of Labour ought to make some arrangement whereby the men can be put into a sound physical condition, at no cost to themselves, so that they can obtain the advantage of transfer or training for which they may be suited.
In relation to the question of co-ordination, I should like to refer to the position of shipyard workers. As I understand the procedure, if a skilled shipyard worker has been out of employment for very many years he falls into the category of a shipyard labourer and is no longer registered as a skilled fitter, rivetter, caulker or plater. I do not think that I shall often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), but in regard to the shipyards which have been closed down, I am to a certain extent in agreement with her. The question of skilled labour there is a tremendously important one. The shipbuilder, the Ministry of Labour and anybody who knows anything about shipbuilding refer to the shortage of skilled shipyard workers. If, owing to rationalisation or the action of National Shipbuilding Securities, Limited, shipyards are shut down, I cannot see why Admiralty work should not be made available in some cases to keep the men in skilled employment. It is simply ridiculous to go on stating in the Press that there is a shortage of skilled shipyard labour, when any of us who represent Clydeside, Tyneside or any shipbuilding centre know that there are hundreds of men who formerly were in the category of skilled shipyard workers who have been reduced to the class of shipyard labourers.
The hon. Member for Jarrow referred to the question of National Shipbuilding Securities Limited, and said that it did not really matter from her point of view when that company was formed. That is not the view I take. I believe in rationalisation, but I do not believe in rationalisation unless the Government are prepared to face up to the social consequences of it. I believe in rationalisation throughout industry, providing we put forward a policy which will deal with the social consequences. I would point out to the hon. Member for Jarrow that National Shipbuilding Securities Limited, was in operation during the period of the Labour Government, and so far as I know they made no real or sincere attempt to deal with the social consequences of rationalisation then.

Miss WILKINSON: I took the trouble to look up this matter, and although the formation of the financial company was in 1930, it was considerably later before they started their operations. The operations

were not, in fact, started until the beginning of 1932.

Miss WARD: May I point out that in your speech yesterday, you said that as far as the shipyard in your constituency was concerned—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I must remind the hon. Lady that I have made no speech.

Miss WARD: I beg pardon. In the speech which was made yesterday by the hon. Member for Jarrow she said that the buying up of Palmers shipyard by National Shipbuilding Securities Limited, was done in 1933. I am not disputing that point, but I am pointing out that on the Clyde and on the Tyne, shipyards were bought by National Shipbuilding Securities Limited, prior to 1933, indeed shortly after the formation of the company. It may be that the shipyards were not closed down, but everyone knew why the company was formed, and the Labour party made no attempt to provide for the social consequences of the action of National Shipbuilding Securities Limited. Let me come back to my point in regard to skilled shipyard workers. The Admiralty may disapprove, they may take a firm line, but if the Government have to deal with a shortage of skilled shipyard labour the only way it can be dealt with, until there is a real revival in the shipbuilding industry, is by using Admiralty work in order to keep these men in our shipyards in skilled employment. The Cabinet should decide that a certain portion of Admiralty work year after year is to be allotted to these shipyards for the express purpose of keeping these skilled shipyard workers, who are now thrown out of work, in their skilled occupation. I hope the Minister of Labour will bear this point in mind and will be able to tackle the Admiralty with the full weight of the Cabinet behind him.
I come now to another point raised by the hon. Member for Seaham in regard to the schemes which are to be put before the Commissioner and, finally, to receive the approval of the Minister of Labour. The hon. Member spoke as if the schemes were to be put forward by the Government, and entirely forgot that the schemes in relation to a great many proposals have to emanate from the local authority. With great respect to local authorities
I say that this is the wrong policy to pursue. I should like the Government to send expert men into the distressed areas to find out for themselves what schemes would be valuable to these areas. Local authorities have a great deal of work to do already. Without passing any reflection on my own local authority I find that the Commissioner discussed with them a scheme for the clearing of the Willington Quay site as long ago as last February, but no scheme has yet been submitted to the Commissioner. I do not think that this is work for local authorities, and I hope that the Government will set up a body of responsible people to go into the distressed areas and consult with the local authorities—their co-operation of course is very valuable—and find out what schemes would receive the approval of the Minister of Labour—and get on with them. The area of Willington Quay as had greater unemployment in its time even than Jarrow, and it makes an hon. Member like myself, who represents the National Government, very humble when I realise that in the last General Election with an unemployment figure of 55 per cent. they voted six to one in favour of me. If I can do it I hope to see this site cleared—I hope I shall receive the warm co-operation of the Minister—and suitable trading estates established, in which I have a firm belief.
Let me turn briefly to another point. I hope that the Minister when he is satisfied that the enterprise at Billing-ham is a commercial success, will send out scientific experts around the coalfields to make surveys and carry out experiments to find whether the quality of the coal in the various areas is really suitable for the production of oil. With a contracting market surely it is advisable to concentrate the production of coal for industrial and export purposes in those areas where the coal is not suitable for the production of oil, and to put down plant on a similar scale to that at Billingham in those areas where the coal is suitable for the production of oil, and use the coal from those coalfields for that purpose. It seems to me that the Government have been a little timid over this experiment. It requires a large capital outlay to put into operation a plant like this in order to prove a commercial success, but I suggest that if the Government were to raise a loan and

guarantee it, based on information obtainable by experts, it might be a very fine thing for some of our coalfields, which can never hope to come into full production as long as there is a restrictive demand in the world for British coal.
One further point in regard to air development. There does not seem to be the slightest doubt that there is going to be a great move forward in civil aviation. I understand that for defensive purposes it is not practicable for the Government to put up factories for the building of military machines in areas which are vulnerable, but I should not like to think that the establishment of two factories on the north-east coast would militate against the air defence of this country. That is rather an unreasonable proposition, and I would suggest, so far as civil aviation is concerned, that if certain parts of the country are selected by the Government as suitable for the building of military aircraft, pressure might then be put by the Government on firms which are opening factories in other parts to establish factories for the building of civil machines in those parts of the country which are not considered suitable for the building of military machines.
I was much impressed by the speech of the Prime Minister in which he asked industrialists to do their duty, but the Prime Minister is, perhaps, rather more optimistic than I am. I think it needs a little more than even the plainest statement to convince some of our industrialists of the fact that they have a real duty to my part of the country and to other distressed areas. We have had some extremely valuable reports from the original investigators who went into these matters before the scheme was thought of which involved the appointment of Mr. Malcolm Stewart. We had also a very interesting report from Mr. Malcolm Stewart but the report which I know most about is that which was prepared by the present Secretary for Overseas Trade and in it some interesting suggestions were made in relation to pensions, the shortening of hours and many controversial questions which are really of a non-party nature. Those points in the Commissioners' reports ought to be selected and a thoroughly reliable committee appointed to consider


them in all their aspects financial, industrial, economic and political.
With all respect, I deprecate the production of the reports containing the most interesting information based on expert investigation and the selection from those reports only of certain things which are not controversial as subjects of Government action, all the other suggestions being ignored. Whether the result of investigation by an expert committee such as I have suggested proves favourable or not, it would be a great satisfaction to a large number of back bench supporters of the Government if suggestions such as those in regard to pensions and shorter hours received expert consideration in order to see how far we could go in those directions with safety to the financial position of the country. When such an expert committee had reported the Government should allow us to have its recommendations both positive and negative. These should be presented to the House for discussion. I hope the Government will follow that line.
I assure my right hon. Friend that those of us who have been returned from the special areas, with the united support of people of different political feelings in our respective districts, are wholeheartedly behind the Government. During the last four years we were prepared to support every kind of legislation for placing Great Britain, as she has been placed, in a foremost position in the world. We were prepared to stand by the Government in matters which involved a great many sacrifices from our own parts of the country while the Government was engaged in bringing comparative prosperity to the rest of Great Britain. We have stood by the Government while everything possible has been done for Great Britain. Now we say with all the emphasis and power at our command, We believe you can do something to help us. The last Parliament was a Parliament for the restoration of national stability and national prosperity. We look to you to make this Parliament a Parliament for the restoration of the stability and prosperity of the special areas.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. CRITCHLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so I crave that indulgence which the House usually affords to a new Member when he rises to make his maiden speech. I am sure it will be granted with greater readiness to me, because it is my privilege on this occasion to follow a lady. I NI as very pleased to hear the Mover of the Motion say that sympathy with the unemployed and the distressed is not the virtue of any one party, but that expression of opinion is rather marred, I think, by the remarks which were made during the Debate on the Address by my hon. Friend the Member for Everton (Mr. Kirby) when he said that his colleagues from Liverpool had not faced up to the Government in this matter. It is to my mind regrettable that the hon. Member should take that view, because after the inspiring remarks of the Mover of the Motion I had hopes that we from Liverpool would get together in a spirit of co-operation. Liverpool is definitely looking to its representatives to do the right and proper thing by their city. I, in common with my colleagues, will lose no opportunity of co-operating towards that end.
The wider issue involved in this matter have been well covered, and I want to deal with the question more from a local point of view, as it affects local authorities. As Liverpool can readily be placed in the category of distressed areas, I propose to take it as my example. I am unable to support the Motion. It is too drastic in its character to enable me to give it support. I feel that whatever is done by the Government, whatever its promised policy may be, that policy must be given the closest, the most sincere and the most concentrated consideration, and in that respect I think the Amendment provides the proper opportunity. I feel that the Government have an apportunity now to help the distressed areas. A lot could be done by repealing, if possible, Section 45 of the Unemployment Act, 1934. An hon. Member opposite said that the distressed areas were, in the main, the most heavily rated. That is certainly true in the case of Liverpool. The reason for it is that in the case of most of the local authorities concerned, public assistance demands have increased beyond all reasonable bounds. In Liverpool in 1930–31 the cost of the able-bodied unemployed who had been transferred to the public assistance authority was £293,418,


whereas in 1934–35 the cost under that head had risen to £1,093,566. I suggest that no local authority can carry such a burden without imposing great privations on people. I would refer hon. Members to the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929, in so far as they apply to the block grants payable to local authorities. The then Minister of Health, speaking on 26th November, 1928, said:
While the block grant is to be recalculated every five years the amount of it is to be fixed for each year in any period of five years. The distribution among the counties and the county boroughs, first, is to be partly and ultimately entirely made according to a formula. The result, I anticipate, will be that each local authority will be secured resources which will be adequate, not merely to carry on the services as they are to-day, but to allow for a reasonable expansion during the five years' period for which they will last, in accordance with the public conscience and the demands which the increasing revenues of the country will permit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1928; col. 93, Vol. 223.]
The figures which I have read concerning Liverpool speak for themselves and show an enormous increase in the cost of public assistance, which is one of our most vital public services. If looks as if we are to rely upon the increasing revenues of the country as and when they come in to bring into line a grant from the Government sufficient to meet those enormous increases in its public services, and if that is not forthcoming, then there must automatically follow an increase in the rate poundage, and that is precisely what has occurred in the City of Liverpool. The rate poundage in 1934–35 was 15s. 2d., and in 1935–36 it has been found necessary to increase it to 16s. 2d. How can the city attract new industries when the rates are so high, and how can existing industries expand? It may be said that industry in the main enjoys the benefit of de-rating. That is so, but de-rating is not permanent in character, and the industrialist who wants to expand, if he takes the longer view, will find that the advantages that de-rating offers in the first place will disappear, because it is not permanent in its character. Then we have the other innumerable trades and businesses, which are not subject to de-rating. We have our hotels, for instance, and our shopkeepers. They have to suffer the full burden of the rates, and they cannot escape them. There is no de-rating for

them, and they have in many cases, as in Liverpool, to suffer an almost yearly monotonous increase in the rates. I can think of scarcely anything more demoralising.
I feel that if the Government will give consideration to the immediate needs of the local authorities, they will be doing the country a service. I can tell the Government that Liverpool itself is quite capable of looking after its own affairs. It has a good government there, which has at times been challenged, but without success. The Government will always look to the immediate needs of the city, I am sure, and the city will be grateful, and whatever the amount will be, it will only be expended in accordance with the city's needs. I therefore feel that in these wider matters we might leave it to the careful consideration and the negotiations that will go on between the Government and the local authorities, and I ask the Government if they will take into consideration the question of repealing Section 45 of the Unemployment Act and redefining the block grant payable to local authorities under the Local Government Act. In those terms and in that spirit, I second the Amendment.

9.20 p.m.

Miss LLOYD GEORGE: I feel sure that I shall be giving expression to the feeling of the whole House when I first, on their behalf, offer their congratulations on his maiden speech to the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Critchley), and particularly on the ability and lucidity with which he put the case for the city which he represents. I aim sure that Members in all parts of the House are grateful to the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) for having raised this vital question and given us an opportunity before the Recess of discussing it. I, myself, represent a distressed area,. It is not a special area, although it has a higher percentage of its insured populuation out of work than many of the areas that are included as special areas. But I can assure the House that the difference is only a difference in name and that it has 44 per cent. of its insured population out of work. The hon. Member who has just resumed his seat spoke with great eloquence about the need for relieving some of the local authorities of the rates which are almost crippling their activities, and I would like to say that


I hope that even yet the Government may be prevailed upon to do something for the relief of these areas, many of which are suffering for events the blame for which at any rate cannot be laid upon them, wherever else it may be laid.
I cannot find myself as grateful as was my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) to the Government for their activities. The House has debated now for six days the policy of the Government, and with one exception, to which I hope to make reference later, we have had very little satisfaction from the Government as to concrete measures to be taken to relieve unemployment in the distressed areas. We have been told that these areas ought to have special regard taken, but they have already had that, and they have had special commissioners. The hon. Lady the Member for Wallsend was very anxious that a body of responsible people should go down to the distressed areas and consult with the local authorities as to schemes that could be carried out, but I cannot help feeling that the time for inquiry is past. We have had countless inquiries, and I cannot help feeling that the time for action has arrived. We have had special commissioners who were fulfilling the very function that the hon. Member for Wallsend wanted more people yet to fulfil. We have had a special Bill, and we have had a special report, which has now been relegated to a special pigeon-hole. We have also a special Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend said that one of the great difficulties in dealing with this matter was that there was lack of co-ordination between Departments. I think that the greatest difficulty is lack of a co-ordinating committee. That committee should be a committee of authority, a committee which, I suggest, could only be formed from the Cabinet. The special Minister has been devoting his time, we are told, entirely to the study of this aspect of our economic problems. He has been called the Minister for Thought. I think that a great many hon. Members representing distressed areas must have said to themselves often
Oh that his tongue would utter
The thoughts that arise in him.

Perhaps it is that his thoughts lie too deep for words. I would like the Minister of Labour to ask his colleague, if he really has a policy, to take the House and the country into his confidence and tell them about it. We have also a Special Commissioner who is looking after the special areas. I do not think anyone in this House would suggest that any blame attaches to him, or that he has not done everything in his power to deal with the problem before him. I say "everything in his power" advisedly, because his power is so limited and restricted, and it is a limitation which he has recognised and put forward for our consideration in a report. The Commissioner can do many things, but there is one thing which is apparently not among his duties, and that is the provision of work. When the last Parliament appointed a Commissioner to be responsible for these areas, and in that Act asked that the Government might do something at last for these areas, they did not think that his functions would merely be an extension of the functions already well performed by private societies such as the Society of Friends and the Council of Social Service People thought that was to be a genuine attempt, not to rescue these areas by simply alleviating distress, but to improve the conditions in these areas and make the lives of the people more endurable by providing work. The Lord President of the Council some months ago told us exactly how the problem of the depressed areas should be tackled. He said:
The businesslike way was to say I mention a sum which I put at your disposal. It will be sufficiently big for you to feel confident that you are going to get what is necessary. The ground has been surveyed, the problem is now clear. You go down and face it, you deal with it, you spend money on it, and I will stand by you.' That is the position, roughly and generally, of the Government.
I think we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to-night whether that is still roughly and generally the position of the Government. Does the Commissioner feel confident that he will get the money that is necessary? And necessary for what purpose? Evidently not to provide work for these people who have been out of work for years. That is not one of his duties. Perhaps the Minister will tell us to-night what his


duties are. I think there is no one in any quarter of the House who would suggest that the mere pouring out of money is going to solve the problem in the distressed areas or anywhere else, but it certainly is an important part of providing work, as even a private company or business would admit. But supposing that the Commissioner had the power of providing work, are the Government providing him with the means? On the narrow but generally accepted basis that £1,000,000 will provide work for 2,500 people directly and 4,000 indirectly, the £3,500,000 which the Attorney-General told us the other day is to be provided for schemes in the distressed areas will not go very far. We have heard from my hon. Friend who has just spoken what relief and public assistance cost in Liverpool. You have only to realise that the money for schemes to alleviate distress in South Wales amounts to something like £800,000, and that public assistance charges in Monmouth alone are about £200,000, to get some idea of the magnitude of the problem and of the way in which the Government are dealing with it.
We are told that there are to be trading factories. I was disappointed not to have heard more about them. They are going to build factories at economic rents for new industries. Someone has called them skeleton factories. We have plenty of skeleton factories already—skeleton mills, skeleton shipyards—we have plenty of those, not only in the distressed areas but in other areas where the advantages are better. It seems to me that in this matter the Government are putting the cart before the horse; in other words, putting the factories before the market. I do not believe that any business man in this country will start a new business or extend his business in any area, whether distressed or otherwise, unless he is reasonably sure that he will get a market for the goods that he is to produce. It is true that factories have been established in recent years, but there is no doubt that even if the limit of expansion in the home market has not yet been reached, it is not very far from it. You may have an industry moving to the distressed areas, but if you are really to get a policy of new industries on a scale which is to make an appreciable impression on the problem of unemployment, I

do not think you can do it unless you create or find a new market.
We often talk about increasing the consuming power of the Colonies and the backward peoples in the Empire, but I do not think we need go as far as that. We might start, first of all, by increasing the consuming power of our own people, and I can think of no more practical way of doing that than by providing work and wages for those who are receiving unemployment insurance and public assistance. This even applies to transference. If you transfer people from one area to another, unless you increase the average volume of work available, you are only taking people from the unemployment register in one area and putting them on to the register in another area. You are not increasing the actual volume of work. Therefore, it seems to me that the most vital and the first and foremost thing to do is to increase the purchasing power of our own people at home.
Yesterday hon. Members on these benches, and to-night hon. Members on the Opposition Labour Benches, went in some detail into the schemes of national development which they would put forward. I think that they are to a large measure supported in all quarters of the House. I do not mean relief schemes, those schemes with no end in view, but the provision of work. It is recognised now that those schemes stand universally condemned. I would define them in the words that the Chancellor used last night when he talked of schemes that offered a possibility of providing considerable employment and of adding to the valuable assets of the country. I am convinced that every hon. Member who supports the policy of national development will be absolutely prepared to accept the Chancellor's definition. The House adjourns next week. It will be mid-February before we meet again—not a pleasant time of the year to be unemployed, not a particularly pleasant time of the year to be under-nourished. I would, therefore, with all the power that I can command beg the Minister of Labour to convey to his colleagues in the Government the feeling, which I believe is general in all parts of the House, that they should tackle this problem, and tackle it effectively.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. SILVERMAN: May I crave the indulgence of the House as it is usually accorded to one making a speech here for the first time? I hope that in making my speech I may take full warning from a remark made by the hon. Lady who moved the Amendment, and remember that three years hence anything I may say to-night will be upon the official records and may be used against me quite fairly. It seems to me that this problem of the distressed areas cannot be dealt with as though it were a problem existing by itself and divorced from the whole of the economic and social complex of affairs out of which it arises. I have heard during this Debate and during the Debates that have preceded it in the past week many gibes at this party because, as was alleged, it has refrained from endeavouring to apply its Socialistic faith to the problems that we were discussing. Therefore, I hope the House will not think me too doctrinaire or dogmatic if I endeavour to say how, in my view, those Socialistic ideas and principles, for which I and my friends stand and work, are the only principles which have any relevance to the problems which the House is discussing on this Motion.
I am bound to say that, listening to the jibes during the past week and coming here for the first time straight from the open air and light which seem to come so rarely in this Chamber, either physically or otherwise, I felt a sense of deepening gloom as speaker after speaker from the Government Benches, beginning with the Prime Minister, made speech after speech the burden of which was, so far as I could see, purely a confession of impotence—they could not do anything, this course will not do, that measure will not do, no grand schemes will be of any effect and no particular schemes are worth pressing very hard. It came, therefore, rather as a breath of fresh air to hear the speech made on Friday by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). I should like to quote a passage from that speech. Dealing with the problem of the distressed areas he said:
Science has not only made it possible but absolutely necessary that human beings should live more abundantly and have more leisure in the future; and, if this cannot be achieved within a measurable space of time, it would have been better if we had never had any scientific development at

all. If we cannot achieve it within a measurable space of time, undoubtedly the system that we are trying to operate at the moment will break. Whether Socialism would be any better I do not know. I do not think so. But I still think we can remedy the situation within the general ambit of the present capitalist system. The acid test of capitalism to-day is whether we can swing over to a sufficient extent from the production of capital goods to the production and consumption of consumable goods."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 6th December, 1935; cols. 460–1, Vol. 307.]
I propose to explain to the hon. Member with the characteristic impudence of the young and inexperienced, exactly why he cannot hope to solve that problem within the ambit of the present capitalist system. It seems to me that we are approaching this problem from the wrong point of view. I have heard many speakers inside and outside this House talk about the tragedy of unemployment, the disease of unemployment and how we can cure unemployment. I do not regard unemployment as a disease, I do not want to cure it. I want to see more and more unemployment. It seems to me that unemployment is the natural dividend which flows from the achievments of civilisation. We have tried for so many centuries to make work less and less necessary. Every time science produces a new machine that will save the labour of so many labourers have we not welcomed it as a triumph for civilisation? Have we not said "This will add to the leisure and dignity of mankind; this will raise the standard of living; this will help the life of mankind and help humanity on its onward progress; this will make human life less mean; this will make human life less sordid; this will make human life richer, Ye shall have life out of this. Ye shall have life more abundantly."
Now, when civilisation has achieved these triumphs, when our machines are working better than ever we thought they might work, when human labour and its drudgery have been made less and less necessary, here are we, the first legislative Assembly in the world, as the Prime Minister told us, sitting on these benches wringing our hands in despair over the triumphs of civilisation. Unemployment is no tragedy, it is no disease. Unemployment is what we have been striving for, what the whole of the human race has been striving for, for centuries and centuries. The disease, the tragedy, is something other than that. The


disease and the tragedy are that we have not known how to distribute the leisure when we have got it. We have not known how to consume the wealth that we have known so well how to produce. That is the tragedy, and the disease is the disease of those wasted human lives, those embittered human lives, those human lives on whose labour, when they can get labour, all the rest of our dignities and all the rest of our comforts and all the rest of our wealth depend. The tragedy is that with all these achievements of civilisation we have an ever-increasing burden upon those at the bottom of the scale, who are increasing in number year by year.
It is no accident that the distressed areas we are discussing are the very areas which, in the past, have contributed most to the prosperity of this country and to its achievements all over the world. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen was right when he said that we must pay people to eat. I would invite him to go further and say that we must learn how to pay people not to work. Only in that way can we use that dividend of civilisation in the interests of the community which has achieved those things. But does that hon. Gentleman, or any hon. or right hon. Gentleman, think that within the ambit of the present capitalist system we could ever pay people not to work, could ever pay people to eat rather than to produce? Somebody says that we do. [An HON. MEMBER: "The landlords."] But with what difficulty and with what protest and with what anxiety? We have heard what has been said about the means test, and even the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, when he was proposing his remedy and showing how you could add to the powers of the consumer to consume by abolishing the family means test, was not prepared to follow his argument to its logical conclusion and to abolish any means test at all. Yet it is only in that way, and in similar ways, that you can really attack the problem we are discussing.
Is it any fault of the unemployed man in a distressed area or in any area that he is unable to work, and has this House or anyone else any moral right to penalise people for that which is not their own fault? Let us not forget that the imposition of any kind of means test simply means imposing a penalty upon people for something for which no moral

blame attaches to them. Unless you are prepared to say a man is unemployed through some fault of his own—I make that exception—there is no more reason why you should apply any means test to his payment or allowance as an unemployed man than you should apply any means test to the wages of an employed man or to the salaries of Ministers or Members in this House, If, then, there is no moral justification for a means test it might yet be justified if there were any justification for it in expediency. But the point I am trying to make is that there is no case for it in expediency either, because it has been admitted that the whole problem of these distressed areas, the whole problem of unemployment, is the problem of under-consumption, and under-consumption when all is said and done, is only another way of saying starvation, nakedness, bad housing and all the other things which we lump together in the word "under-consumption" or as we used to call it, "over-production."
Within this capitalist system these problems can never be attacked in that way. Why not? Because when you have a system which depends upon profit you cannot have a system which has any use for plenty. That follows so logically and so inevitably that I wonder sometimes why it is not generally admitted. There is no profit in plenty, and if you have a system which tests the economic value of every enterprise by the test of whether at the end of the year's working a profit can be shown you have a system which depends upon scarcity for its very existence. There you have the explanation of why, in this age of plenty, you have the Minister of Agriculture spending most of his leisure hours or, I ought to say, his working hours in trying to invent schemes by which artificial scarcity may be produced.
I remember reading a short time ago a speech by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), whose absence from the House this evening I do not regret but rather envy. He said "Why is it that all these idle people cannot be brought into contact with the idle factories and the idle natural resources, so that the wealth which they need to consume can be produced by their own labour?" He is not so simple as not to know the answer. They cannot be and they will


not be, within the ambit of this system. They are unemployed to-day precisely because they have always produced too much. The only effect of their producing more would be so to lower prices that the bottom would fall out of the system. The only effect of bringing them into association in that way and of setting them to work would be to increase production, and the only effect of increasing production would be to lower prices at a time when the whole effort of His Majesty's Government is directed towards raising prices. That is why it is not done, and I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman knew that that was why it was not done.
Even to-night listening to the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) when she was dealing with the same problem, I heard her say, after she dealt very admirably with the need for increasing the purchasing power of consumers, that one of the best ways of doing so was by providing work and wages. The hon. Lady is proposing to deal with the disease, which consists in the inability of the community to consume the wealth which has been produced, by increasing not merely the effective demand but the supply at the same time. How is that any remedy? It cannot be done. The only way in which it could be done would be by abolishing the system which makes the test of profit the acid test of whether a thing is economic, and to substitute for that test of profit the test of service. It is for that principle that we on these benches contend.
I hope that I have not exceeded the indulgence of the House, either in the somewhat dogmatic and doctrinaire form which my speech has taken or in the length of time which I have taken in delivering it. I would like to say two things very shortly, in conclusion. I have heard throughout this debate hon. and right hon. Gentlemen say that they would like to get something which they have read upon the official record of the proceedings of this House. I too would like to see something that I have read placed upon the official proceedings. It was my fortune—I say not whether good or bad—to read shortly after the Election in a newspaper which supports the Government an article in which a political correspondent was telling Election anecdotes which he believed to be funny. One of

the anecdotes was of a Conservative speaker who was addressing an audience of unemployed and was advocating allotments as one solution of the unemployment problem. One of the unemployed in his audience interrupted and asked what he should do with an allotment. The reply, which the journalist to whom I have referred thought was funny, was, "You could at any rate dig it—dig your grave in it and occupy your allotment." That story was told as a joke, and as one of the funniest stories of the Election.

An HON. MEMBER: Did anybody laugh?

Mr. SILVERMAN: I am unable to say. [An HON. MEMBER: "Maiden speech."] Never mind. I do not mind the interruption in the least. I was asked whether anybody laughed, and I am unable to say. I can only quote the correspondent of that newspaper for what he or she was worth. Presumably the correspondent must have heard somebody laugh, or may be he laughed at it himself; otherwise one would wonder why he thought it was funny. Perhaps it is one of the tests of people's attitude to affairs to look just at that question of what it is that makes them laugh.
Those unemployed people are the salt of the earth. They are the people who are bearing our burdens. They are the people who are paying the price for our mistakes. I have heard an hon. Gentleman on the Benches opposite say: "Why do the unemployed not join the Army, the Navy and the Air Force"? If they did so, we should all be glad to pay them wages for not working and do so much more cheerfully while they were not working than while they were. These men and women, who are paying, with their wasted, stunted, embittered, useless lives, the whole cost of our failure to make civilisation good, are the salt of the earth, and the test of any Government and their policy, the test of any social or political outlook, cannot be better expressed than by judging it by what it is prepared to do for those at the very bottom of the social scale, not in pulling down those who are better off but in raising from the gutter those wasted human lives.

10.3 p.m.

Miss CAZALET: I should like on behalf of the House to congratulate the hon. Member who has just made such a very


interesting maiden speech. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that he has spoken with great sincerity and great lucidity and that we look forward to hearing him again.
I am very glad to support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward). I was most interested in all that she had to say and I feel that her constituency has done itself a great service in returning her again to this House. By doing so it has undoubtedly also shown great confidence in the future action of the National Government in connection with the distressed areas. I regret that I cannot say that the same reason applies to the electors of Anglesey when they returned my hon. Friend the Member for that constituency (Miss Lloyd George). If she will allow me to say so—although she rather objected to the word in her speech this evening—she was returned to this House, I think, because she is a very special person. Whether or not we represent distressed areas, we are all equally concerned with the solution of this problem, especially those of us who live in or around London, where the repercussions of this question are very much in evidence. I am convinced that there is no one solution of the problem, and that it is only by a combination of many remedies that a cure can be found. That is why I, for one, am very pleased indeed at the comprehensive nature of the King's Speech. I feel that every item in that Speech, when translated into legislation, will help to effect the cure for those special areas.
I should like to refer to a very interesting analysis which has been produced by the Minister of Labour. Some months ago, I asked the Minister for certain facts and figures with regard to what is known as the hard core of unemployment, which we know to be mainly centred in the depressed areas. I thought that if these facts and figures could be produced they would make the whole position easier to grasp and easier of solution, and I am most grateful to the Minister for having produced them. The report is in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for October, and shows exactly how many men and women have been out of work for one, two, three, four and five years. It also divides these into various age-groups

and into nine or ten of the principal industries affected.
I have no desire to trouble the House with unnecessary figures, but I would like to give just one example which shows the most difficult and certainly the saddest aspect of the whole problem, the problem of those who have been out of employment for the longest time. Even this aspect is shown by this analysis to take on a far more manageable form. In the whole age group from 16 to 64 there are 32,000 who have been unemployed for more than five years, of whom under 20,000 are over the age of 45 and under 64 years, and about 12,000 between 18 and 44. When we divide these further into the various industries we get far smaller figures. Take the one instance of shipbuilding. Only about 1,100 of the younger group have been out of work for over five years, and about 1,100 of the older group. I do not want to minimise these figures in the very slightest, but what I feel, and I am sure all Members will agree, is that we want to hold on to the fact that we are dealing with individuals and not simply with hundreds and thousands of people.
Anyone who studies this report, and it is well worth studying, will feel that in a comparatively prosperous country such as this, where there are more people in work than ever before in our history, and where the standard of living is higher than in almost any part of the world, we are to-day in a position in which, after analysis, the whole problem of the so-called hard core of unemployment does not take on nearly such alarming proportions. When viewed against the whole economic life of the country it should not, and does not, appear either so overwhelming or so insoluble. I am sure that a close study of these figures—and I am not underestimating the difficulties at all—will be a great help to those who are initiating schemes and plans in the depressed areas, both on a voluntary and a governmental basis.
There is just one other matter I should like to mention, which has been mentioned on many occasions in connection with the distressed areas, and that is the problem of malnutrition and the need for higher food consumption. I listened last Friday with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for East


Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). I thought his speech both practical and constructive—especially when he talked of the necessity for better food, better chosen and better prepared. He referred to the difficulty that our young women to-day refuse to take an interest in cooking. I should like to remind him that very few good cooks are born. They have to be made. Cooking is a science like anything else. We all know what a very excellent dish cabbage can be and, alas, what it too often is! This also applies to a great many other dishes and vegetables.
I was very interested in what the Seconder of the Motion said this evening as to the special strain that we know falls on the shoulders of the women, who have to carry so much of the burden of unemployment. We all know this, whether or not we represent "distressed" areas. The Commissioner pointed it out very clearly in his report last July when he stressed the need for direction and instruction both in buying and cooking food. The various reports we have seen from time to time have shown that malnutrition is not always due to lack of food, but very often to the wrong type of food, wrongly cooked and wrongly prepared. No matter to what political party they belong, people in this country as a whole are very conservative in their tastes and habits, and I am quite sure the Government can do a great deal by constant suggestion on the right lines in this matter.
I welcome very much the special Committee on Nutrition which has been set up by the Government but which, I understand, has not yet reported. When it does report I am sure it will shed a great deal of valuable light on this subject. I believe the Government might do well to establish a permanent advisory committee on food values, on possible menus and seasonable meals, both from the point of view of the body's needs, and of the available foodstuffs at the different times of the year; which it is very difficult indeed for the ordinary housewife to know. Education in this matter will depend on the number of properly trained teachers, and I hope the Government will set up as many courses as possible all over the country, not only in the distressed areas. That is one reason why I welcome the raising of the

school-leaving age, for it will give the girls at the end of their school life a chance of learning the value of foodstuffs and more about cooking. We all know that well-cooked meals must always play no inconsiderable part in the happiness and welfare of our people, men, women and children alike, and the Government should spare no steps to raise the standard of cooking, which would prove of enormous benefit both to the urban consumers and to the agricultural producers throughout the country.
Finally, I believe that the great majority of people, not only on this side but in all quarters of the House, are far more interested in getting things done than in mere party politics or party shibboleths. That is why I, for one, welcome the proposals of the Government. We all want to see a greater degree of security and a still higher standard of living in this country. I do not believe that ultimate perfection or prosperity will ever be reached by the pure doctrine of Capitalism, of Nationalisation, or even of Free Trade. In all human affairs there is always a new and better way, and I am sure that under the National Government we are beginning to find a new and better way to meet the new and complicated problems of the modern world.

10.15 p.m.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): I intervene for only a few minutes, because, if I remember rightly, it has sometimes been said that Ministers on the Front Bench have taken an inordinate amount of time on what is essentially a private Members' night. I am sure that the House feels obliged to the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), who moved the Motion, and that he will not think I am showing him any discourtesy if I do not make a long and detailed reply. I think it is the duty of a Minister, on such an occasion as this, to sit and listen rather than to speak. I have taken a careful note of everything that has been said, and shall read the Debate carefully to-morrow, There were, however, some practical points with regard to which Members showed quite clearly that they would like further information, and I will do my best briefly VI' give that information.
With regard to the general structure of the Commissioner's power and reports, I would say that the previous report has been examined, discussions have taken place with the Commissioner, and he will shortly be issuing a further progress report. This will show that what was said in the previous Debate has been carried out, that is to say, that he is continuing his work on a wider scale and in an intensive manner. While the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), if I may say this about her speech, talked about the need for co-ordination in the Government, I think that in some respects there was lack of co-ordination on the bench from which she spoke. With regard to the new trading estate, she rather made the point that what was needed was a market, and that there was no market. The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts), in his very interesting and powerful maiden speech from the same bench made, however, precisely the opposite point, namely, that the land was there, the market was there, and what was wanted was to develop the opportunity for the use of that market by the people living in the distressed area of Cumberland. That, of course, is precisely the point of the trading estate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) made a rather disparaging allusion to it in his speech the other night. He said:
I have a sort of feeling that it will look like a Chinese bungalow town, or something like a bazaar where people may go and buy if they like; a sort of open air Woolworth's."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 9th December, 1935; col. 677, Vol. 307.]
That is not the point. This idea is one of three for dealing with the problem. To help to solve this problem you must either revivify the industries in the area, or you must bring new industries there, or you must move people who cannot find opportunities there to areas where there is industry. With regard to the second point, namely, the bringing in of new industries, it has been pointed out that one of the difficulties was that there was no preparation for their going there. On a private basis we have seen two of these trading estates, namely, Slough and Trafford Park. What is meant by the trading estate is this: The Commissioner for Special Areas in England and Wales proposes to start such an experiment in the North-Eastern area, somewhere on

Tyneside. The idea is to create a public utility society to acquire land, to level it as may be necessary, and to construct on it suitable factory buildings on modern lines for letting at economic rents. The estate will be served by roads, railway sidings and power supply. The Commissioner is in touch with the North-East Coast Development Council as to the details of the scheme, and a little later on I shall be able to report to the House the progress which has been made. I may tell Members from South Wales that we contemplate the establishment of a somewhat similar venture, though not necessarily on the same lines, in that area. That is the meaning of trading estates, and all those who have given careful attention, as many Members of the previous House did, to the reports on this subject by the various commissioners who have examined it, will watch the experiment with the greatest interest to see whether it succeeds in doing what we all want, and attracting new industries in those areas where some of the old industries have ceased to give the amount of employment that they used to do.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to say whether the Government will hold themselves responsible for the finance necessary for capital outlay?

Mr. BROWN: The Commissioners have never been hampered, inside the terms of the Act, for lack of money. When you are quoting round or approximate figures about any particular plan, especially a new plan, a round figure sticks in the mind and those who do not read the explanations about it with care tend to draw it as an arbitrary figure. It never was the intention of the Government to limit the Commissioners to the sum of £2,000,000, and they have not been so limited. I can give the House the figure of the commitments up to the moment of the Commissioners. It is £3,750,000. If hon. Members feel it necessary to use a round figure, perhaps in future they will substitute that as the figure of the commitments up to date. If in pursuance of his duties a Commissioner desires to enter upon an experiment of this or any other kind for the economic and social development of the distressed areas within the terms of the Act, finance has not been, is not now and will not be an obstacle.

Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Gentleman says the Commissioners have spent 3,750,000.

Mr. BROWN: No, I did not say that.

Mr. LAWSON: What have they done with it? There is not a sign of one man having been employed in the North.

Mr. BROWN: The matter is to be formally debated between the Opposition and the Government, and that will be a more appropriate occasion to go into matters of that kind. All I am doing to-night, having had no warning that any particular issue was going to be raised, is to give what information I can for the guidance of the House.

Viscountess ASTOR: Suppose you found you were not quite satisfied with one of the Commissioners—I am not saying that you are not, but if you were not—how could you get rid of him?

Mr. BROWN: The Government, having the power to appoint, have the power to terminate the appointment if they so desire, but I should like on behalf of the Government to pay a warm tribute to the devotion to duty of the Commissioner in England and Wales and, although I am not responsible, of the Commissioner for Scotland and those district commissioners who have served with such great ability.
In answer to two or three hon. Members who have raised the question of rates, I should like to put one or two facts on record. The Motion calls for Government action, and I would ask hon. Members who have demanded exceptional action to note this for reflection. In the financial year 1933–34 in Cumberland the rates yielded £392,851, and the Government grants were £894,619, or 69.5 per cent. of the total. In Durham the rates were £2,262,579, and the Government grants 23,854,428, or 63 per cent. of the total. I will not proceed any further, but I have given an indication of the relation between rates and grants in order to point out to the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Critchley) and other Members of the House two things. First of all, when considering the question of local government, we have to realise that extreme pressure for more grants and less rates involves the issue of the national control of other services. I would say to the hon. Member for Edge Hill, who raised

the question of the 1929 Act, that substantial assistance was given under that Act by way of block grants, and the system of block grants is due for revision in March, 1937, when the whole thing will be reconsidered.

Mr. LOGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with 1931 in regard to Liverpool?

Mr. BROWN: I am dealing with questions raised in the Debate.

Mr. LOGAN: The right hon. Gentleman was replying to the hon. Member for Edge Hill, which is part of Liverpool.

Mr. KIRBY: rose—

Mr. BROWN: I was asked to say a word about—

Mr. KIRBY: I am sorry if I misunderstand the situation, but I saw that other Members were asking questions, and I thought that I would like to ask one. I listened with interest to the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave in regard to Cumberland and Durham, and I would like to have the comparable figures for Liverpool.

Mr. BROWN: I have not got the figures for Liverpool here, but I will send them to the hon. Gentleman with pleasure after the Debate.

Mr. LOGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way for a moment?

Mr. BROWN: I think that I shall be doing an injustice to the House if I take up too much time. I was asked by the hon. Member for Seaham a special question about afforestation. I would inform the hon. Member that at the present time we have almost completed a long-term programme to replace the existing five-year programme which will expire next year. In that connection we are giving a great deal of attention to planting on land in or adjoining special areas. The details are now under expert examination, which is not quite complete, but I can assure the House that the Government have in mind the needs of the special areas and they will take every opportunity, in planning such extended planting programmes as will soon be decided upon, to include schemes which will promote employment in those areas. Another question raised by several hon.


Members is that of land settlement, and I will give one or two figures about that for the information of the House. I would point out that the Commissioner has made considerable progress in this matter since the last report to this House. Arrangements have been concluded with the Land Settlement Association whereby that body will, during the next 18 months, aim at settling 1,500 unemployed families from Durham, Tyneside and Northumberland on the land. Nine estates have already been acquired for the purpose. The Commissioner has already promised land in Durham which will provide holdings of about a quarter of an acre, and 532 new holdings were established in that county last season, and 260 holdings were extended. The work of the Commissioner is developing, some of it very rapidly. It is not the case, as some hon. Members were inclined to say in the early days, that this experiment is making no contribution to our problem. The fact is that the experiment, in the judgment of the Government, has been well worth making, and it is bearing fruit in increasing degrees in all these areas. More than that, when the progress report comes out I am sure that many hon. Members who will look at the total vote of £2,000,000 and treat it as an arbitrary figure and who do not allow for the lag there is in any schemes of development—the planning of the scheme, its announcement and its fruition—will understand that what happens with all schemes happens also with this.
We have heard nothing to-night, polemical. Although the hon. Member for Seaham spoke about things that were not solutions, I noticed in his speech the absence of their solution. We had it given to us in general terms by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) in his maiden speech. Perhaps we may discuss that further on some other occasion. We talk of human resources. Human resourcefulness is one of the greatest of all human resources. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may smile, but that is a fact often overlooked by those who put forward arguments about a change of system. The Government never held the view, and do not hold the view that is held by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, that all that is needed in this problem is

Government action. What is needed is manifold action to harness initiative energy and wisdom on a many-sided scale in order that all may make their contribution. Because we have done that, we have to report at the end of four years' work a great improvement not merely in the whole employment situation throughout the land, but in these areas also. Nothing was more remarkable at the last Election than the fact that some of those areas which hon. Members: opposite had hoped on this issue to sweep into their net, registered against them, and nothing was more remarkable than the fact that Tyneside was among those areas. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Durham?"] Tyneside is close to Durham. Of all the victories in the Election none was more remarkable than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward), whose Amendment I have great pleasure in recommending to the acceptance of the House.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. A. EDWARDS: I must apologise to the House for increasing the overdraft on the indulgence account. I promise them that I shall not do it again. The hon. Member who seconded the Liberal Motion yesterday said that he expected someone from these benches, later on, would get up in order to persuade the House that their policy was not Socialism. May I respectfully remind him that the electors in my constituency anticipated that necessity? The comrade who used to share the Liberal representation of Middlesbrough had the doubtful distinction of forfeiting his deposit, a thing quite unique for a sitting Member. The electors knew quite well that the Liberal policy is not Socialism. Perhaps the Minister will allow me to say this to him while it is in my mind. I would like to assist him in finding trading sites. On Tees-side, which although not a distressed area is yet in a distressed condition, I can find him many sites which can be let at an uneconomic rent and which have all the facilities to which he has alluded in his speech. Owing to the operation of the "Shipbuilding securities" scheme we have on Tees-side whole lengths on the south side of the river which are available for people who wish to put down factories. It is one of the finest rivers in the country. I want to appeal to the Minister


to schedule Middlesbrough as a distressed area. The whole of the area around has been scheduled but the most important town in the district has been missed, and we think that it will be a little unfair if we lose some of the benefits which are to be brought to these areas.
Several hon. Members have asked us for some practical suggestions. May I with all due modesty suggest to the Government an alteration in their present plans? In Middlesbrough we have more than 2,000 families without homes and no possibility of getting them. The last figures given to me show that including slum clearance, 450 houses are being built and that there are 2,000 families on our list without homes. I heard a scheme propounded by the right hon. Gentleman who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, a long time ago, in which he explained to the people he was addressing that if they would invest their money in building homes for working people they would get 6 per cent. on their investment and after 30 years 30 per cent. Those who have the honour of serving on local authorities know something about the housing difficulty. Last year the Government requested local authorities to call a conference of landowners, building societies, builders, and also those people who were prepared to invest their money in these homes for working people. They pressed it as a practical scheme to sustain private enterprise. I had the amazing experience of sitting several times on a body which was trying to solve this great problem. There were first of all the people who owned the land, they wanted a profit; and I will tell the House in a moment what kind of profit they required. Then there were building societies who also wanted a profit, but they came down a half per cent in order to help. Then there were the builders who wanted a profit, and all those people who were to invest their money and receive 6 per cent. on their investment.
In view of the accusations which have been made that Socialism is impracticable, will the Minister bear these facts in mind, and let us have an explanation? There were the landowners, the building societies, who wanted 4½ per cent., the builders and the householders society

who were to provide homes for the working people. We Socialists made this simple proposition which was turned down as impracticable. We said "We can borrow money at 3 per cent. We can buy land cheaper than any of these people. We can develop larger schemes and we can build by direct labour." It only needs a little calculation to show what an immense saving there would have been and our scheme which hon. Members opposite would describe as foolishness would have had this advantage, that it would have put all these people into homes, if the Government had given us any encouragement. It does not seem to me that it is those on this side of the House who are being judged at present. It is the system represented by hon. Members opposite that is being judged and I submit that on the facts it has been proved to be a failure. As far as I am concerned I shall be glad to co-operate wherever I can co-operate if we can only get homes for the people who are in such need of them.
I promised that I would refer to the private profit which these people wanted. Our housing scheme was going so badly that I decided to have a shot at it myself, I went to buy a plot of 10 acres on an estate which had been broken up seven years previously. Then, the 10 acres were sold for £700. They were offered to me for £2,500 and at first I was willing to buy at that price but I was persuaded that the difficulties in the way were so great that I could not carry out my plan. The week after I turned down the offer this piece of land was sold for £3,000. Within two months it was sold for £6,000 and the owners hope to get out of our corporation £8,000 for it. The right hon. Gentleman opposite and many other people have asked us for some practical proposal. Will those right hon. Gentlemen who are now associated with the Government and who were in the 1931 Government undertake, for their own justification, if they are still Socialists, to bring into use the plan which was formulated in 1931 to prevent this kind of profiteering in land values. Such a step would do a tremendous lot to help in this problem. I hope we are going to be sincere. I hoped that there would be sincere discussion about these subjects and that we should learn something from it. These are vital problems. I am not going to take up the time of


the House in giving details of cases of hardship. It may be called "sob stuff" but "sob stuff" or not, it is a record of real suffering.
I suggest another matter for consideration, and that is the possibility of preventing people setting up factories in the Smith in preference to the industrial areas. I do not know of any valid excuse except in exceptional circumstances. As regards the question of transport I have sent stuff two or three times a week to London from Birmingham and Middlesbrough cheaper than I could send it from 20 miles outside London. I have shipped stuff at five o'clock in the evening which has been delivered to my customer the following morning and my expenses were immensely lower than they would be in London. We can send a cargo overnight or within 24 hours from the Tees to London and have it delivered at a very convenient spot and I submit that people who are putting down their factories in London have not a valid reason for doing so. I wish the Government would not allow it. If they took some steps in that direction it would solve half a dozen problems. It would help the right hon. Gentleman whose name has become associated with the disfigurement of our streets to solve this problem.
May I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to another problem? An hon. Friend of mine in front of me referred to a famous battle which was won out Eton way. I read in a paper recently that we have a hundred Members in this House who were educated at Eton. May I remind them of a famous battle which their colleagues fought in the last Parliament, when they won a less creditable victory—the battle of Waterloo Bridge? That would have needed steel from Middlesbrough, and it would have helped my district had it gone forward. I hope those hon. Members will recover their reputation and, when the project comes before this House again, see that Waterloo Bridge is built in a proper, businesslike way, and buy the steel from Middlesbrough. I do not know whether this was a sense of humour on the part of the advertising department of the National Government, but shortly after that project was being discussed in this (louse, they issued an illustrated paper for the benefit of the electorate, and in that newspaper they showed a bridge,

and they said, "This is made of steel from Middlesbrough." But it was a bridge in Denmark, and the Government gave a loan to build that bridge, but not for Waterloo Bridge. What is the use, if we are to put forward proposals and they are turned down simply because they are branded as Socialism? Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have stumbled across some good plans, but what would they have done if they had become enlightened? They have been described as a gang of inverted Micawbers waiting for something to turn down.
I would like to refer to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, speaking in this House the other night, waved his hand and expressed his ignorance of an appeal that had been made. I was on a relief committee that was held up to public criticism because the amount we allowed in relief was 5d. per head more than any other committee gave where they did not have a sufficient number of Labour councillors. I am afraid that some of the discussions in this House have not been altogether sincere with regard, that is, to the means test. The story has been told often of a man who went before a committee, and the chairman said to him, "Where do you live?" He replied, "In lodgings." "How much do you pay?" "Fifteen shillings." "Don't you think you would be better with your parents?" "Yes." "Where are they?" "They are dead." The reason I have referred to that is that the right hon. Gentleman, speaking from that Box the other night, not long ago was in my constituency, and he was just as happy and mirthful, and he said, "I enjoy questions." It is the answers that trouble him. He was very happy until someone in the ball asked him about the operation of the means test. Then he pulled himself up to his full stature and said, "Can you expect a Cabinet Minister in His Majesty's Government to answer questions like that?" I submit that the moment when something that really mattered was touched upon there was some difficulty.
At the same meeting I recall well that this member of the Government, referring to the armaments programme, claimed that this would help the distressed areas. He said, "If these men have to defend their country, I am going to insist that they have the best ships that money can


buy." That was a very noble sentiment, but would it not be much more noble if members of the Government said also, "We shall first see that the men who may be called upon to man those ships are properly fed." I do not want to trespass further on the indulgence of the House. I have been happy to note the generous treatment accorded to Members making their maiden speeches. I know

there is a happy tradition that the people who follow have to obey, and I do not want to put too great a strain on that tradition.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 208.

Division No. 7.]
AYES.
[10.54 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Owen, Major G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parkinson, J. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hardie, G. D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Ammon, C. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Potts, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Price, M. P.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Quibell, J. D.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Barnes, A. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Riley, B.


Batey, J.
Holdsworth, H.
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F.
Holland, A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benson, G.
Holland, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Broad, F. A.
Hopkin, D.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rowson, G.


Brooke, W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton, T. M.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Shinwell, E.


Cape, T.
Kelly, W. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Compton, J.
Lathan, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, H.
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
McGovern, J.
Walker, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Westwood, J.


Foot, D. M.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
White, H. Graham


Frankel, D.
Marklew, E.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gallacher, W.
Marshall, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Mathers, G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Maxton, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Messer, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Milner, Major J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gibbins, J.
Montague, F.



Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Croves.




NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Baxter, A. Beverley
Butler, R. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cartland, J. R. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Beit, Sir A. L.
Carver, Major W. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Bird, Sir R. B.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Blindell, J.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Apsley, Lord
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Channon, H.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Atholl, Duchess of
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Chorlton, A. E. L.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Clarry, R. G.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Cochrane, Comdr. Hon. A. D.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Colman, N. C. D.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Bull, B. B.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.




Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rankin, R.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Critchley, A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Crooke, J. S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Remer, J. R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cross, R. H.
Joel, D. J. B.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Rowlands, G.


Culverwell, C. T.
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


De Chair, S. S.
Latham, Sir P.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Salmon, Sir I.


Denville, A.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Salt, E. W.


Donner, P. W.
Lees-Jones, J.
Scott, Lord William


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Selley, H. R.


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Levy, T.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Liddall, W. S.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Lindsay, K. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Duggan, H. J.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Lloyd, G. W.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Dunglass, Lord
Lyons, A. M.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Dunne, P. R. R.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Eastwood, J. F.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Eckersley, P. T.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Spens, W. P.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McKie, J. H.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Ellis, Sir G.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Elliston, G. S.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Emery, J. F.
Magnay, T.
Sutcliffe, H.


Entwistle, C. F.
Maitland, A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Errington, E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tate, Mavis C.


Everard, W. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Fildes, Sir H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Moreing, A. C.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Freemantle, Sir F. E.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Touche, G. C.


Furness, S. N.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col, A. J.
Turton, R. H.


Gledhill, G.
Munro, P. M.
Wakefield, W. W.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Goldie, N. B.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Warrender, Sir V.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peake, O.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Peat, C. U.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Penny, Sir G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Grimston, R. V.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C-mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Guy, J. C M.
Petherick, M.



Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Proctor, Major H. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartington, Marquess of
Purbrick, R.
Miss Ward and Mr. Storey.


Harvey, G.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 137.

Division No. 8.]
AYES.
[11.4 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Craddock, Sir R. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Craven-Ellis, W.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ld-.)
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Critchley, A.


Apsley, Lord
Bull, B. B.
Crooke, J. S.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Butler, R. A.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cartland, J. R. H.
Cross, R. H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Carver, Major W. H.
Crowder, J. F. E.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Cruddas, Col. B.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Culverwell, C. T.


Balniel, Lord
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Channon, H.
Denville, A.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Donner, P. W.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Chorlton, A. E. L.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Clarry, R. G.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Cochrane, Comdr. Hon. A. D.
Dugdale, Major T. L.


Blindell, J.
Colman, N. C. D.
Duggan, H. J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Duncan, J. A. L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Dunglass, Lord


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Dunne, P. R. R.




Eastwood, J. F.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Remer, J. R.


Eckersley, P. T.
Lees-Jones, J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Ellis, Sir G.
Levy, T.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Elliston, G. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Rowlands, G.


Emery, J. F.
Lindsay, K. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Entwistle, C. F.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Errington, E.
Lloyd, G. W.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Everard, W. L.
Lyons, A. M.
Salmon, Sir I.


Fildes, Sir H.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Salt, E. W.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Scott, Lord William


Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Selley, H. R.


Freemantle, Sir F. E.
McKie, J. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar)


Furness, S. N.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Magnay, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Maitland, A.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Gledhill, G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Goldie, N. B.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spens, W. P.


Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Moreing, A. C.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Sutcliffe, H.


Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Munro, P. M.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Guy, J. C. M.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Hartington, Marquess of
Palmer, G. E. H.
Touche, G. C.


Harvey, G.
Peake, O.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Peat, C. U.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Penny, Sir G.
Turton, R. H.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Wakefield, W. W.


Holmes, J. S.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Petherick, M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Proctor, Major H. A.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Purbrick, R.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Joel, D. J. B.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Keeling, E. H.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Rankin, R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Latham, Sir P.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)



Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Miss Ward and Mr. Storey.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kirby, B. V.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Lathan, G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Foot, D. M.
Lawson, J. J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Frankel, D.
Leach, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Gallacher, W.
Lee, F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Gardner, B. W.
Leslie, J. R.


Ammon, C. G.
Garro-Jones, G. M.
Logan, D. G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Banfield, J. W.
Gibbins, J.
McEntee, V. La T.


Barnes, A. J.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
McGhee, H. G.


Bellenger, F.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
McGovern, J.


Benson, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
McLaren, A.


Broad, F. A.
Grenfell, D. R.
Maclean, N.


Bromfield, W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)


Brooke, W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
MacNeill, Weir, L.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Groves, T. E.
Marklew, E.


Buchanan, G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marshall, F.


Burke, W. A.
Hardie, G. D.
Maxton, J.


Cape, T.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Messer, F.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Milner, Major J.


Chater, D.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Montague, F.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)


Compton, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Daggar, G.
Holdsworth, H.
Naylor, T. E.


Dalton, H.
Holland, A.
Oliver, G. H.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hollins, A.
Owen, Major G.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Hopkin, D.
Paling, W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Parkinson, J. A.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Day, H.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Potts, J.


Dobbie, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Price, M. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Qulbell, J. D.


Ede, J. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Riley, B.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ritson, J.







Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Westwood, J.


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Sorensen, R. W.
White, H. Graham


Rothschild, J. A. de
Stephen, C.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Rowson, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Sanders, W. S.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Seely, Sir H. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Sexton, T. M.
Thurtle, E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Shinwell, E.
Tinker, J. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Silverman, S. S.
Viant, S. P.



Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Walkden, A. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, E. (Stoke)
Watkins, F. C.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Watson, W. McL.

Main Question, as amended, proposed.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAYS (AGREEMENT) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, with a view to enabling effect to be given to an agreement made on the thirtieth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, between the Treasury, the Great Western Railway Company, the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company, the London and North Eastern Railway Company, and the Southern Railway Company, a copy whereof was laid before this House on the third day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, it is expedient—
(a) to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the payment of the principal and interest of securities to be issued by the company to be formed in pursuance of Clause 3 of the said agreement:
Provided that the amount of the principal of the securities to be so guaranteed shall not in the aggregate exceed an amount sufficient to raise twenty-six million five hundred thousand pounds;
(b) to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required for fulfilling the said guarantee and the payment into the Exchequer of any moneys received by way of repayment of any sums so issued;
(c) to exempt the said agreement and other agreements mentioned in paragraph (b) of Clause 2 of the said agreement from stamp duty;
(d) to make certain provisions ancillary to the matters aforesaid."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

11.14 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: When the Eleven o'Clock Rule operated last night I was saying that one of the things that struck me was that the vast railway companies of the country must have accumulated capital in shareholdings representing hundreds of millions of pounds. The London Midland and Scottish Railway Company alone must have a shareholding capacity at least far in excess of the amount we are now discussing. We take it that their share of the sum will be one-fourth, or £8,000,000. I find it difficult to be able to see why a company with so much shareholding capital cannot raise such a small sum of money itself in the open market. Why is it that the railway companies, that must have great assets and whose investments must represent such a great figure, are not able themselves to come to the open market to raise the money now? Why is it that they have to come to the Government to create a Finance Company in order to raise this money to create assets for them? When the State has granted the railway companies this loan, it will have added an asset to the railway companies. It will have made them more up-to-date and better railways, and to that extent they will have become a greater asset, not belonging to the community who are raising this money, but to private interests.
What guarantees have the community in return? I can see nothing in this proposal to safeguard the working people involved. Indeed, I have to-day a letter from certain of my constituents who view the proposal with considerable concern, because they say that every development of the railway companies in this connection in the past has meant a gradual decline in the number of railway employés. While it is said that railway traffic and railway revenue have gone up, the number of employés has remained stationary, or in many cases has decreased. The figures given this evening by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr.


Shinwell) with regard to railways and collieries showed that, just as these industries have become efficient in machinery and in power of producing wealth, and have made themselves better assets, so certain classes of workers have suffered.
It has never been claimed that the railway companies were entitled to this assistance. From a business point of view I was amazed at the Chancellor's speech. Generally speaking he argues such a case on business principles, but he did not do so last night. The only reason he gave for this proposal was not a business reason, that we should help the railway companies, but that we were incidentally providing work. It was not that the railway companies needed it, or that it would be better for the community, but that certain people would get work as a result. I do not take the view that the only way to provide useful remunerative work for the community is to provide great capitalist enterprises with either direct or, as in this case, indirect subsidies. If you can raise £36,000,000, and if work is to be provided, are there not other sections of the community who are in greater need of it than the railway companies? Are not the claims of the unemployed to this sum much greater than those of any private company? Is it not the fact that, if you raised the standard of life of the unemployed, they would equally provide useful and remunerative work by buying things with their increased allowances, as much as any railway company would, and, indeed, more.
My experience is that, in connection with roads and railways, there is generally a rake-off in the buying of land and other charges, so that what the workers receive in wages is often substantially less than the amount the House has voted. From the point of view of the provision of work, I would much prefer a grant to the working people who are in need, because I take the view that, if they had extra money, they would buy clothes and other necessaries of life, and in that way would provide as useful and indeed better social work than the provision of capital for the railways. When we are applying for poor people we are told that there should be some sort of test of need. I dissent from the view that only directors and shareholders are better

than the unemployed. They queue up for subsidies but what need has been proved? Has anyone said the railways are more in need of this money than any of the great industries? During the Election I and members of the Labour party attacked subsidies. Are we now to let them go unopposed? I know how difficult it is when you have only workers who are going to get jobs, but once you start you have no right to object to sugar beet, wheat or any other form of subsidy. I think I could prove that the agricultural community are in greater want than the railways, but I take the view that none of them are in need. If you are going to maintain the private enterprise system let it be a competitive system and let those who believe in it raise the money and run the system. If they believe it has broken down, let them come to the nation and say the railways can no longer be remunerative as private interests. Let them take them over and run them with national money and national backing, and with direct guarantees to every worker, no matter how humble he may be, but I refuse to follow in the path of a policy of subsidising private enterprise. I take the view that this using of national money will ultimately lead to a serious corruption of public life. Not only will it involve capitalist interests, but it will jeopardise the interests of the working people. I should be lacking in my public duty and in my duty to my constituents if, in this matter, I and those who are associated with me, however small in numbers we may be, did not divide the House.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. D. ADAMS: It must be exceedingly entertaining to the Socialists in this House to hear the new doctrine of Socialism enunciated by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). The advertising media which this House is supposed to be for the small group associated with him is always used to the fullest possible extent. It will be agreed that one of the true doctrinaires of the Socialist programme, policy and philosophy is Mr. Sidney Webb (now Lord Passfield) and he has always laid it down that, if we are to acquire public industries of any description, the prelude to that ought to be the unification and improvement of the same. It is for that reason that I, as a Socialist, am glad to


find that the railway companies are so advanced in their outlook, and so sensible of their statutory obligations to the public, as to appeal to the only tribunal available to them, that is, the Government of the day for this relatively small grant for which they are asking. I am always gratified when I learn that any of our premier industries, particularly those which are to a large extent under the control of Parliament, in as much as they are statutory and their deeds may be brought under review in this House, are maintaining their business in a state of efficiency. I am astonished and disappointed at the smallness of the amount, which will go only a small way towards providing employment. I say that because of the exceedingly disappointing week's Debate which we have had upon the question of the distressed areas. Analyse the position as I may, and taking the most liberal outlook upon the proposals of the Government, I am unable to find in these any hope of employment as far as the North-East Coast is concerned. When I learn that the Railways are to place orders for a large number of locomotives, additional rails and other railway material for which the Tyneside is famous, I am certain we shall get a proportionate share of the work which is ahead.
One would imagine from the statement of the hon. Member for Gorbals that this grant to the railway companies is an alternative to some grant to the working classes or to the unemployed. I have not learned that that is the case. If it were the case we on these benches would most decidedly take exception to it and demand that the workers, the unemployed people, the underpaid miners and those who are suffering from a low standard of existence should have first call. But I have not heard, not even from the hon. Member, how this proposal impinges upon the national resources or upon the Government's finances. This grant of money will make no difference so far as the State resources are concerned. There is a considerable difference between the grants made to railway companies under this scheme and some of the subsidies which have been granted in other directions. For instance, the milk subsidies were actual gifts. Many of the agricultural subsidies are gifts made to agricultural interests,

directly taken from the public purse, without any public control, and handed over to private corporations or private individuals. In the present case no one has the slightest doubt that there will be any necessity to call upon the guarantees which the Government are providing. Our credit is not impaired in any degree whatever. In that way the community are getting an advantage on exceedingly cheap terms. I have no objection, where the case is legitimate and proved, to any of our great industries coming to the State for financial support. I can imagine that in a Socialist State that is precisely what will ensue. The central Government will be asked to do a certain amount of financing of various organisations in the general interests.
But there is a point upon which I lay great stress and that is that we ought not to make advances of public moneys unless we have a measure of public representation. That principle ought to be always part of the proposal when agreements are made by the Government to give support to statutory or other industrial concerns. I hope the Government have taken that matter into consideration and will so insist. If they did so it would enable us in this House to have some say with regard to the procedure of the board which is to handle the finance. I shall always press that point on any similar occasion. I think the Government have been sadly lacking in the subsidies to agriculture, shipping and elsewhere in not insisting upon having on these organisations representation which would be directly responsible to a Minister. That would enable the House to have some critical control over the money advanced. The course which the House will ultimately pursue in regard to this matter is a wise one and is in harmony with the spirit of the age in which we are living. The central authority must come to the aid of industry, and in process of time instead of permitting private enterprise to run the great industries of the country, it would take these over through public ownership and control.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I take this opportunity of once again raising a question which I have pursued on many occasions during the last four years.


Indeed I should be wanting in my duty to my constituents if I did not again call attention to this problem. On page 10 of the memorandum of the Financial Resolution hon. Members will find the words to which I allude. It says:
In the execution of the works comprised in the First Schedule hereto the following conditions shall be observed by the Railway Companies: all plant machinery and materials required in connection with the said works shall so far as practicable be of United Kingdom origin and all manufactured articles shall (unless the Treasury shall otherwise agree in writing) be wholly manufactured in the United Kingdom"—
the next sentence is the one which is germane to my purpose—
preference being given other things being equal to firms in the Special Areas as defined in the First Schedule to the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934.
No one will deny the claim of what is called special areas to the most generous consideration from the Government in finding employment for the people in those areas, and I shall always support them in their demands. I want, however, to call attention to the point that the definition of what really are special areas is not sufficient for our purpose. I have been a representative in this House for many years of an area where the percentage of unemployment is as high as anything that can be found in some of these special areas. There are 31 townships in the county of Durham which is a special area. The percentage of unemployment over the whole of Durham is 34.8; but I have the township of Hindley, in my division of 26,000 inhabitants, which has an unemployment rate of 52.7 per cent., and Westhoughton, another town, with a rate of 34.7 per cent. The same argument applies to South Wales. In the county of Glamorgan, which comprises a special area, there are 31 townships, and 28 of these townships have a smaller percentage than the rate for the whole of my Parliamentary Division. If there is any work to be found under this Financial Resolution—I do not know and I cannot tell—I want to ask whether any money and work which accrue are going to percolate to any of the areas I have mentioned which are as distressed as those which are so defined. I do not think that hon. Members, certainly not Members of the Government, have ever understood the

problem which confronts us in Lancashire. In that county we have 4,000,000 people, a bigger population than the whole of Scotland and nearly twice that of the whole of Wales. I speak, of course, as a Lancashire man on this question. There are patches in the county of Lancashire which are every bit as distressed as any part of the counties of Durham, Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. Although there are areas in Lancashire, there is nothing in this Resolution which promises to help them.
There are, of course, railway shops all over the country. There is one at Horwich in my division and that is why I am speaking now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I would be a very poor Member of Parliament if I did not speak on behalf of those whom I represent. Let me tell the Government what has happened in the township of Horwich, which depends almost entirely on the railway shop. Eight years ago there were 4,500 men employed there. To-day there are only 2,500. When this colossal sum of nearly £30,000,000 is being guaranteed by the State, every member of the community, wherever he is living, is entitled to the same treatment by the State. Every town in the land is entitled to the same treatment in regard to moneys which are being guaranteed by the State in this respect. Whilst granting of course that a share of this money should percolate to the special areas, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether the work which will become available is to be confined strictly to those special areas and not extended to other distressed areas such as those I have mentioned?

11.42 p.m.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: I support the Resolution which gives a guarantee to the railway companies from the State, but I would like to see at the same time a guarantee from the railway companies to the community of increased efficiency in their services to meet modern transport needs. I believe there is a future for the railway companies if they cease to adopt a defeatist attitude. We do not want to see the railways being used only by nervous old ladies, to whom time is no object, nor do we want to see them used solely for the transport of non-perishable goods. We do not want


them to become merely the means by which estimable elderly gentlemen can get old-age pensions, nor do we desire that in times to come when our children's children ask us "What meant ye by these long straight mounds?" We should be compelled to reply "These were the means by which, in the olden days, when time was no object, we were content to travel." We know what the railway companies can do. The London and North Eastern Railway Company has shown by the Silver Jubilee train that a speed of 100 miles an hour can be achieved. But if the London and North Eastern Railway Company has a train that can travel, like the Silver Jubilee, from Huntingdon to London in three-quarters of an hour, why did that company yesterday make me sit in a train for two and a quarter hours for the same journey? I appeal to the companies who are getting this guarantee from the State to become more efficient.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. GALLACHER: In another Debate some of the hon. Members opposite on the Front Bench were very anxious to impress us with the idea that the Prime Minister was an honest man. I have a sort of suspicion that there is a spot of honesty about the Chancellor of the Exchequer as well. But the Chancellor opened up last night by a frank admission or acceptance of the fact that he was stealing our thunder. When we consider the question of raising a loan for the railway companies we come up against this fact, that hon. and right hon. Members opposite are always concerned with property, never with persons, and so we get from the Chancellor of the Exchequer information that a new station will be built at Euston, that bridges sill be built here and there, that new railway lines will be laid, but we get never a word at all about persons. In the discussion to-day an hon. Gentleman opposite said that if the miners get a square deal, the public will pay the money, but do we get that hon. Gentleman or other hon. Gentlemen saying, "All right, we will give them a square deal, and then we will get the money?" No. Another hon. Gentleman said the thing that is wanted is more money in the mining industry, instead of saying that what is wanted is more money in the miner's pocket. Here in this question

of the railways the big problem for us to deal with is the men who are keeping the railways running. That should be the big problem for us, at any rate. When we are talking about handing out public money for the development of the railways, are we going to have a new station, but old conditions for the persons employed in the new station, new lines, but the old slavery for the men working on the lines? Is there to be nothing new so far as the men are concerned?
I know that this is proposed as a loan to the railway companies, but I am very suspicious of the railway companies. I do not know as much about finance as does the Chancellor, but I do not like his explanation of this business. He says that after the railway companies get the power, they will raise the money later on to repay the loans. He is forming this finance company in order to help the railway companies with a loan when money is cheap. Well, there is not much prospect of the rate going down, but the right hon. Gentleman tells us that while the railway companies pay the interest on the cheap money now, later on they will have to raise another loan to pay the money back. Is he going to tell us that he is getting money cheap and will loan it to the railway companies, and later on the companies will have to raise a loan of dear money in order to pay him for the loan of cheap money? Is that it? I do not accept the story he tells us about the railway companies having to pay back later on. I am satisfied that once the railway companies get the money, they will stick to it, and what I am concerned about is to see to it that something is done in connection with this raising of a loan for the development of railway property to ensure that there is a corresponding development in the wellbeing and conditions of the men working on the stations along the railway lines. On this I am prepared to fight, and I am certain that every Member on these benches will be prepared to fight. I am prepared to say: "Not a penny for railway development unless it is clearly understood there is to be development of better conditions and shorter hours for the railway workers, and the restoration of the cuts." Will you be prepared to lay down those conditions? If you want to rush along the railways at greater speed, then you must see that


the railway workers have short hours and sufficient wages to ensure that the best attention is given to your speed.
It is strange that we should find an hon. Member concerned about speed on the railways while nobody seems much concerned about speeding-up here. I would take £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 from this finance company and make a new building here, where the air would be fresh and where Members instead of lying back asleep would be able to take some intelligent participation in the Debate. If intelligent interest were taken in the work done here, somebody would have moved the other night that the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Colonial Office should be put out and kept out. It is only because we refuse to reorganise this place that such behaviour as we saw in that exhibition can take place. My concern, and the concern of hon. Members on this side, is to see that the railway workers get a square deal in connection with any public money that is spent.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. ENTWISTLE: I want to take up a point raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I am very concerned in this as regards my constituency of Bolton. It is mainly a cotton town, but it used to be one of the most important engineering centres in the country. So far as engineering is concerned, it is in an appallingly depressed condition; whereas there used to be a large number of important engineering works, there is only one large one left, and a few small firms. I want to ask the Government whether the interpretation of the Clause about preference being given to the special areas precludes contracts being made in districts which are not special areas under the statutory definition? A special area is defined geographically, but in my view the intention of this Clause is to give preference where an industry is depressed. It would be most undesirable that these restrictions should be so limited that you could not place a contract in an area where that particular industry is very depressed. I can give an instance of how a Clause similar to this has worked very harshly to a firm in my Division. They had already provided certain plant to, I think, the London Transport Board, and in the ordinary way they would have got

a repeat order, but they did not receive it, simply because they were not held to be in a special area within the meaning of the Clause. I would like the Government to consider whether it is not possible to amend these words "special area" or to add some words which would include a depressed industry in an area which is not a special area within the statutory definition of that area.

Mr. POTTS: It has been suggested to me that I should not keep the House tonight and that I should have an opportunity of speaking on Friday. On the understanding that I shall be allowed to speak on Friday, I will not speak to-night.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. G. HARDIE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the money would be forthcoming at once, but that what was not used at once would be lent somewhere in order to keep it busy. Since he proposes to borrow money cheaply and to lend it cheaply, where does he expect to invest it so as to get sufficient interest to pay for it? It means that while he is prepared to give the railway companies the greatest possible advantage from the loan, he must, if he is going to relend part of the money that is not being used, lend it at higher interest. It seems very unfair to place the companies in this advantageous position. If the Government are going to enter upon a system of helping to finance private enterprise, it will open the gates to all kinds of possibilities. The only excuse given by the Chancellor for this rush was that it would take a long time for the railway companies to get the necessary legislation in this House. That excuse, however, simply charges the companies—and I hope the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) is listening—with lack of foresight in their own business. If they had been keen business men, instead of lawyers who know nothing about railways, they would have understood years ago that the development was bound to come. There was every indication of the growth of certain centres and of the need of transport of all kinds, and the statement of the Chancellor means that as the railway companies have failed in every respect, the Government have had to come to their assistance if they are to carry out necessary developments. There will be repercussions of this development which should be provided against. Subsidiary


companies will be formed to take advantage of the enhanced values of land and property which will result from the development. If the Government, representing the people, are going to help an industry, they should at the same time pass legislation to prevent the values created by the spending of this money going into the hands of private companies. I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Hillhead is well aware of the struggle going on now in order to have these subsidiary companies drawing in every possible penny. Lord Ashfield has given an illustration of the plunder and theft that went on in connection with land values when the tube railway was extended beyond Golders Green. He was not in any way "bud-mouthed," as we say in Scotland, about making a statement. We want guarantees on all these points, because it is what is going on in the background that will tell the tale in the end. I want some guarantee as to the work that is going to be done and where it is to be done. In Glasgow, where there are many railway works, the local authorities have incurred heavy financial responsibilities in providing houses, mostly for railway workers, in certain districts, but in the past very little consideration has been paid to that fact by private enterprise. The capitalists want to be free to "lift the whole caboodle" to some place where they think their works will do better in their own interests, paying no regard to the nation or the community. I ask for this guarantee—that where works are already established and it is only a question of changing their machinery, those works shall be retained and the workers skilled in railway work retained.

12.2 a.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I now reply to a few of the observations which have been made on this Financial Resolution. The Committee will not expect me to cover all the ground traversed by hon. Members. The discussion has ranged over a fairly wide area, including topics as various as the system of land valuation and the ventilation of this House, and some of the observations have appeared to be addressed not so much to His Majesty's Government as to the right hon. Member

for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), who is quite well able to look after himself. Coming to the serious points of criticism advanced by the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) yesterday I should like to acknowledge that his treatment of the proposal seemed to be sympathetic, if not enthusiastic. He refrained from opposing the Resolution, though at the same time making it perfectly plain that he had certain reservations. He asked, first, whether all the works specified in the Schedule were abnormal works. The answer is that they are, at this time. It was explicit during the negotiations between the Treasury and the railway companies that the works to be undertaken as a result of this operation would be works which the railway companies would not have done at this particular time but for this Measure.
I would like to make it clear that the normal replacement and renewal work of the railway companies will go on side by side with this extra work. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had looked at the works in the schedule and that they appeared to be the sort of works which railway companies undertake. So they are, and they are works which railway companies can be supposed to undertake some time, but the works specified in the Schedule to the Agreement are none of them works which the railway companies would undertake at this time if it were not for the financial help set out in the Agreement. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is in the affirmative. They are all works which otherwise would not have been put in hand.
The reservation, as I understand it, that has been put in many guises during the discussion, was that the Motion betokened a failure of private enterprise, as if we were rushing to rescue the tottering railway companies. The exact opposite is the case. The argument would be germane if this financial arrangement were being come to in order to enable the railway companies to continue running, but that is not so. The railways are running efficiently and well; they are transporting day by day millions of passengers and thousands of tons of goods.
The purpose of this Motion is not to enable the railway companies to carry out their normal function of transport, or even the normal renewals and replacements,


but to enable them to carry out something extra to their ordinary duties by putting in hand works before their normal time, works which will give employment and assist industry.
Quite a distorted picture has been given of these negotiations by some hon. Members opposite. This is not a case of the railway companies coming to the Government and asking for assistance to prevent them from going to ruin, but of the Government going to the railway companies and saying: "Now that the state of the money market is in its present favourable position, can you not do something if we lend you credit, by putting works in hand?"

Mr. MAXION: Why did not you come to me?

Mr. McGOVERN: The Independent Labour party would spend the money for you.

Mr. MORRISON: I have no doubt that the hon. Member would spend all the money he could get hold of. It is not a case of the railway companies coming for assistance, but of the Government, taking a view of the conditions of the money market, who thought it was possible to help employment if the railway companies could carry out these works.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Why did the Government choose the railway companies? Why did they not, if the railways are so efficient, choose the roads or road transport?

Mr. MORRISON: If the hon. Member considered for a moment he would see the answer to his own question. The roads are already being dealt with. The railways are among our greatest public statutory undertakings. They are the very ones which may affect particular sections of industry over a very wide area. They are being asked to accelerate their normal method of replacement and to assist the provision of work over a wide area.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is this not rather a different picture from that which was put before us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne)?

Sir R. HORNE: There is no contradiction at all.

Mr. MORRISON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney read us a little, good-natured lecture on the iniquity of doing anything to assist private undertakings such as the railways. But the right hon. Member seemed to think there was some impropriety in this granting of credit to private bodies, though he admitted last night that the chances of the Exchequer having to pay them anything at the end of the operations was very slight. The right hon. Gentleman's criticism might have been more justified if the Treasury had offered to the railways any portion of the taxpayers' money. There is nothing of the kind proposed. Indeed the only proposal of that kind which has ever been put into operation was put into operation by hon. Members opposite when they were in the Government. The right hon. Member for South Hackney was Minister of Transport in a Government which included some of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen I see opposite, and that Government, by its own Development Act of 1929 did not give credit to the railway companies, but handed over a grant of public money to pay the interest on loans put out by the railway companies.

Mr. McGOVERN: The Liberals made them do it.

Mr. MORRISON: What happened on that occasion was that in 1929 hon. Members opposite handed over to private undertakings the sum of £9,000,000 of the taxpayers' money and said, "Good-bye to all that." I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it is not for them to criticise the Government for this particular proposal to lend credit. We are not handing over any money to the railway companies. We are not even lending them money. What we are lending them is credit. Between the position of the Government to-day and the position of the right hon. Gentleman when they were in power there are many different circumstances, but the most important difference in the circumstances as they exist to-day, and as they existed in 1929, is that we have some credit to lend.
I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman for the figure of haw many man-years of employment these schemes would give. I am informed by the wise men who know what a man-year is that the


ordinary basis for calculating this figure is that the expenditure of £1,000,000 gives 4,000 man-years of employment. By a simple sum in arithmetic which even I am able to solve, therefore, the number of man-years of employment given by these proposals would be 120,000. That would be no small contribution to employment in this country.
An additional point of criticism is that we have put no representatives of the Government on the boards of the railways. I may say that when hon. Members opposite in 1929 handed over, not credit, but money, to the railways, they did not seek to place any representative of the Government on the boards of the companies. The Government do put representatives on the boards of various companies, but there are generally one or two reasons operating when this is done. The company may be doing work in which the Government are interested, as in the case of the Suez Canal, Imperial Airways, cables and wireless, whose operations affect such large interests of national policy. The only other case is under the Trade Facilities Act, when some company, perhaps, which is just starting with a board which, in the opinion of the Treasury, requires strengthening with expert advice. In those cases it may be thought desirable to put Government representatives on the board. But in the case of the railway companies neither of these conditions applies. In the first place, they are large industrial concerns in this country, and there is no question of international policy. I am aware that the Treasury contains a number of devoted, intelligent, and even erudite public servants, but I have never yet learned that an intimate knowledge of the working of the main-line railways is part of the equipment of a Civil servant, no matter how erudite he is. We do not think that we should strengthen the boards of the railway companies to any appreciable extent by this method, and we think it better to leave the management of the railways to men who have made it their life study.
Another suggested reason why we should have Government representatives on the boards is that it would enable us to know what was going on. But we are dealing here with statutory companies which are not either experimental or new concerns, and there is ample power under Clause 17 for the Government to get all

the information they require as to what is being done by the railway companies. Therefore, there is no real force in the argument that we should have representatives on the boards.
With regard to the provision in the contract that the work is to be given, other things being equal, in the special areas, those words, of course, do not mean that areas outside the special areas will not have any of this work. I agree, however, that this point is one of substance. It is not now the time, on this Financial Resolution, to go into and alter the definition of a special area; but if, on the matter being gone into, it is found that there is a point of substance and that some variation is neded in the definition of what is meant by a special area for the purposes of this agreement, I have not the least doubt that the railway companies will agree to modify the agreement accordingly.
It has been said that some expense would be incurred by the formation of this company. Of course, you cannot form a company without a little expense, but it will be exceedingly small in this case, on the analogy of the London Passenger Transport Board. The directors will receive no remuneration, and it is merely for the purpose of giving the necessary elasticity for managing the loan. There are, too, compensating factors which make this proposal a very good business one for the Committee to endorse. In the first place, the expenses of issuing one guaranteed loan are likely to be much less than if four separate loans were raised by the railway companies; and, as my right hon. Friend mentioned last night, it is reasonable to suppose that there will be a financial advantage through the Finance Company investing the whole of the money that is not immediately required for the works of the railway companies, as against the railway companies separately investing the surplus in smaller amounts at different times. Thirdly, the real and important justification for this procedure, which it is right that the Committee should always keep in mind, is that it enables the money to be raised at the particularly favourable rates which are now prevailing. Whatever little expense is involved the railway companies, as the agreement says, have agreed that it is worth while in order to secure the rates which


now exist, have agreed to defray the cost of forming the company. I ask the Committee to consider the Resolution favourably. The point of urgency has been made abundantly clear. It is a Resolution which will do a great deal of good towards employment throughout industry and will improve at the same time the convenience and the safety of railway passengers.

12.21 a.m.

Mr. E. SMITH: After the case that has been made out by the Financial Secretary from the side of the Government, we on this side would be lacking in our duty if we did not state the point of view of the people we represent. If it is right to guarantee principal and interest to the extent proposed, why stop at this? I come from an area the centre of which is the most densely populated in the world. The local authorities during the past few years have sent resolution after resolution to the Government asking that the railway should be electrified, but they have obtained no satisfaction. It is acknowledged by the experts in the railway world that if any line needs electrifying it is the loop line in the Staffordshire area. We have this guarantee of principal and interest to the companies, but there is not a word about guaranteeing the lives of the workers which are invested in railway companies.
We have had some experience of this kind of thing. At Rugby, for example, the effect of introducing electrification in signalling is that there is to be one signal box where hitherto there have been five. I agree that it results in efficiency, but let us examine the effects of efficiency on those engaged in the industry. In 1913 the railways employed 618,000. In 1921, as a result of a greater volume of passengers being carried, they employed 736,000, but that was not the position for very long. As a result of greater efficiency and electrification we find that in 1935 the railway companies are employing only 597,000. Year after year the numbers employed by the railway companies have been reduced. Efficiency has been increased, but all the time at the expense of the men employed in the railway industry. In 1926, 13,000 men were discharged; in 1927, 6,000; in 1928, 25,000; in 1929, 41,000; in 1931, 18,000; and in 1932, 31,000. What is the effect on the

individual employé? In 1931, five men were employed where six men had been employed in 1921, and by 1934, four men were employed where five men had been employed in 1931. Although the interest is being guaranteed in this Resolution, not a word has been said about guaranteeing the livelihood of the people engaged in the industry, and we who are on this side of the House intend to see that we get some guarantee as far as they are concerned.

12.27 a.m.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: I do not intend to keep the House for more than two minutes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I am not apologising in any way for keeping the House. It would be very unseemly if the House were to show any haste in passing this Resolution without having the question fully satisfied. I should like to have a brief explanation of Clause 9, which says:
Any losses on capital account which may be made by the Finance Company in the investment of the unborrowed proceeds of its securities (except such losses as the Treasury may determine to be fairly attributable to the investment of moneys in respect of which Parliament has refused to grant borrowing powers) shall be treated as moneys borrowed by the Railway Companies.
It is the words in parenthesis that I completely fail to understand. No doubt there is a very good explanation, but I should like to have it. The second point is that the maximum amount which the Treasury is guaranteeing is not this nominal figure of £26,500,000, but a sum sufficient to advance that amount to the railway companies after certain exemptions from stamp duty, which are also direct losses to the Exchequer. If the railway companies obtained this money through the ordinary Money Market it would be a very expensive item, probably at least 2 per cent. Apparently the whole of that is being saved by this method, and moneys which would have had to be paid in stamp duty are being saved by the railway companies. This is really a direct subsidy to the railway companies in the raising of this money. Subject to satisfactory answers on those two points, neither I nor any other hon. Member will vote against this Measure, but I assure hon. Members opposite that it is not one that we receive with any enthusiasm, particularly in view of the claim by the hon. Gentleman that this very transaction is


an illustration of the vaunted efficiency of private enterprise.
All these works are either necessary or they are not necessary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us during the Election that no works which were not of direct public benefit would be put into operation. Are these works directly necessary or not? If they are directly necessary, then the railway companies are not showing efficiency if they cannot finance them and put them into operation. The railway companies it is true, are able to survive, but then they are the pampered statutory companies of the State. Every form of competition which menaces the railway companies is suppressed by the Government. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Epping

(Mr. Churchill) stand at that Box and say what a terrible thing it would be if by the advent of some new form of transport the vast amount of capital invested in these railways were to be endangered. Therefore, by every conceivable method of pampering, favouritism and financial privileges, the Government are assisting the railways to maintain themselves. To bring this forward as a reason and as an example of the efficiency of the railways is a travesty of the facts, and it will be with some feeling of shame that I shall allow this to be passed through the House.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 2.

Division No. 9.]
AYES.
[12.33 a.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Errington, E.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Everard, W. L.
Munro, P. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Furness, S. N.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. cf Ldn.)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Apsley, Lord
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Peake, O.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Gledhill, G.
Peat, C. U.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Penny, Sir G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Goldie, N. B.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Porritt, R. W.


Balniel, Lord
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Proctor, Major H. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Rankin, R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Grimston, R. V.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Blindell, J.
Guy, J. C. M.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Harris, Sir P. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Bull, B. B.
Holdsworth, H.
Scott, Lord William


Cartland, J. R. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Carver, Major W. H.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Channon, H.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Spens, W. P.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Joel, D. J. B.
Storey, S.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Keeling, E. H.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Sutcliffe, H.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Latham, Sir P.
Tate, Mavis C.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Levy, T.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Liddall, W. S.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Cross, R. H.
Lindsay, K. M.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lloyd, G. W.
Wakefield, W. W.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lyons, A. M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
M'Connell, 'Sir J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
McKie, J. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Duggan, H. J.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Dunne, P. R. R.
Maitland, A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Eastwood, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Eckersley, P. T.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.



Elliot, Rt. Han. W. E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Emery, J. F.
Mills, Major j. D. (New Forest)
Dr. Morris-Jones and Captain


Entwistle, C. F.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Arthur Hope.




NOES.


Maxton, J.
Stephen, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Buchanan and Mr. McGovern.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Wednesday Evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Orders of the Day — ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.

In pursuance of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919 (9 and 10 Geo. V., c. 76, s. 2 (2)), Mr. SPEAKER has nominated the following Fifteen Members of the House of Commons to serve, for the duration of the present Parliament, upon the Ecclesiastical Committee:

The Right Hon. Lord Hugh Richard Cecil,

The Right Hon. Viscount Wolmer,

Major the Right Hon. John Waller Hills,

The Right Hon. George Lansbury, J.P.,

Sir Henry Strother Cautley, baronet, K.C.,

The Hon. Richard Douglas Denman,

Sir John Haslam, knight,

Major Sir John Dearman Birchall, knight, J.P.,

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Francis Edward Fremantle, O.B.E

Brigadier - General Howard Clifton Brown, D.L., J.P.,

Geoffrey le Mesurier Mander, esquire,

Doctor Sidney John Peters, M.A., LL.D.,

Thomas Cape, esquire,

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter, C.B.,

Charles George Amnion, esquire.

Adjourned at Seventeen Minutes before One o'clock.